Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR AND PEACE AIMS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether consultations with our Allies on the subject of war and peace aims have now been concluded; and whether a statement will be made at an early date, in view of the powerful assistance in the winning of the war such a declaration of future intentions would render if made known to the enemy and throughout the world?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his Question of 21st January, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. Friend say how long this procrastination and delay are going on; does not he realise that there is very great interest throughout this country and in the world in the statement of our peace aims?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I certainly realise that, and I think the country also realises the force of the Prime Minister's observations of 21st January.

Mr. Mander: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that it is not enough simply to say that we want to beat Hitler, and that we want something rather further than that?

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to make a statement about the situation at Tangier?

Mr. Butler: I have nothing at present to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) on 29th January, but my right hon. Friend hopes

shortly to be in a position to make a full statement on the situation.

Mr. Mander: If I put down the Question next week, is it probable that the answer will be ready?

Mr. Butler: I hope so.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made in the study of post-war conditions by the organs of the League of Nations now in Canada and the United States of America?

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend understands that the work of the Economic and Financial Section of the League now in the United States is proceeding satisfactorily. The staff of the International Labour Organisation, at present established in Canada, is carrying on the work of the organisation as far as possible on normal lines.

Mr. Mander: Am I right in assuming that it is the desire of the Government to make the fullest practical use of the organisations of the League now in the United States and Canada?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, certainly the hon. Member is right in making that assumption.

Mr. Liddall: Will my right hon. Friend consider sending the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) to Geneva for the duration?

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough not to take any advice from "Municheers"?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

IMPERIAL AIR COMMUNICATIONS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air what organisation exists in his Ministry for the maintenance of essential Imperial air communications?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): Essential Imperial air communications are maintained by the British Overseas Airways Corporation. The whole of the undertaking of the corporation has, by order, been placed at my disposal during the war and it now


operates under directions issued by me or on my behalf. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is in the Air Ministry a Department of Civil Aviation which is responsible for the conduct of official business in this sphere of activity and is the channel through which my directions are normally issued.

Mr. Simmonds: Has my right hon. Friend been aware of the sundry activities by other Departments tending to reduce these essential Imperial air communications, and will he therefore see that in the Ministry there is great vigilance, so that parts of the Empire air routes which are essential for military communication purposes are not shut down?

Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly, Sir; all parts of these air communications which are essential for military purposes are being maintained.

STATION ENGINEERS (OVERTIME).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air what provision has been made for payment to station engineers who work periods in excess of the normal working week?

Sir A. Sinclair: Station engineers employed under the Air Ministry Works Directorate who work periods in excess of their normal working week are now eligible for bonus payments under a scheme recently introduced, which takes effect retrospectively from 1st August, 1940.

Mr. Simmonds: Has this scheme actually been announced, and have claims now been invited from these engineers?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, instructions have been issued, and I will certainly give my hon. Friend a copy of them if he wishes.

Mr. Simmonds: Would my right hon. Friend please look into the matter, because there seems to be great delay?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir.

AIR BOMBARDMENTS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Air where and when the first air bombardment took place on large towns or cities in Germany and Great Britain, and on Berlin and London, respectively, since the collapse of France;

and whether he has any information as to the number of killed and seriously injured through air bombardment in Germany during the above period?

Sir A. Sinclair: On the night of 18th–19th June, 1940, following the French request for an armistice made on the 17th of the same month, bombs were dropped on Cambridge, Bury St. Edmunds and Southend, killing 10 persons and injuring a number of others. On the same night the Royal Air Force attacked military targets in Hamburg, Bremen and elsewhere in North-West Germany. London was first bombed on 15th–16th August. There was a considerable number of casualties, many of which were fatal. Military targets in Berlin were attacked for the first time by the Royal Air Force on 25th Auugst. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we may take it that, as we have been assured that the material damage is 50 times greater in Germany than it is here, the number of people killed and injured is possibly in the same proportion?

Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot possibly accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. I have never said that the damage in Germany is 50 times greater than it is here.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of his colleagues has made that statement?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

PARACHUTE FABRIC.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether the instrument for testing the perdurability of fabric manufactured for parachutes is in production; on what date was it brought to the attention of the Ministry; and is it satisfactory?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): I have already communicated with my hon. Friend on this matter, both by letter and orally, and I regret that I am not in a position to answer his Question until he furnishes the particulars for which I have asked.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he is satisfied with the liaison arrangements between his Department and the scientific, research and development departments of the Air Ministry; what steps have been or are to be taken to co-ordinate aeronautical science, research and development in industry; and have the representative aeronautical scientists been recently consulted by his Ministry?

Colonel Llewellin: The scientific research and development departments of the Air Ministry were taken over from that Ministry by this Ministry on its formation. In order to avoid unnecessary overlapping, this Ministry co-ordinates all aeronautical research and development in the industry. Representative aeronautical scientists are frequently and regularly consulted by us mainly through the Aeronautical Research Committee.

Mr. Simmonds: Can my hon. and gal-land Friend say whether these aeronautical scientists in his Ministry feel that they have the strong support of his Noble Friend and himself in the important work they are doing?

Colonel Llewellin: I think it is well understood that we must rely very largely on the assistance of these gentlemen for the development of our research work.

Mr. E. Smith: As the Question also refers to the meteorological service, will the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking to investigate this matter personally, and, if necessary, appoint a cornrnittee to inquire into the whole issue raised in that Question with a view to reporting?

Colonel Llewellin: I think that the meteorological part of the Question comes under the Air Ministry.

PATENT RIGHTS.

Mr. Loftus: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether, with a view to avoiding delays in production, the Ministry will take over forthwith all patent rights connected with, and now being used in connection with, aircraft production, reserving the question of compensation for future settlement?

Colonel Llewellin: Under Section 29 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, the Department already exercises the power to use patented inventions and to reserve the question of compensation for future settlement.

Mr. Loftus: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether all these British rights are available to the American manufacturers who are manufacturing aeroplanes for the R.A.F.?

Colonel Llewellin: We have an arrangement whereby, through the United States Administration, we share patents without any argument in advance as to what patent fees shall be paid, and that applies both to American patents that they let us use and to British patents which we allow to be used in the United States.

Mr. Woodburn: Has the attention of the Minister been called to the statement that certain firms keep secret very important inventions with regard to aircraft which might have a great effect on improving the production of other firms, and are all these inventions made available to all firms producing aircraft in this country at the present moment?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, I think that that is quite true. I think there is none of these inventions of which the Department does not know, and, of course, the Department make them available to all people manufacturing aircraft.

SHADOW FACTORIES (MANAGEMENT FEES).

Mr. Loftus: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production the total amount paid in management fees in respect to shadow factories for aircraft production up to the latest available date; or, alternatively, for the years 1939 and 1940?

Colonel Llewellin: On more than one occasion prior to the commencement of the war figures were given to the House showing the amount of management fee attributable to each airframe and engine produced from the shadow factories. If, therefore, I were to give the figures asked for by my hon. Friend, I should be giving information to the enemy which neither he nor I would wish to give. I shall, however, be delighted to show my hon. Friend any figures which he wishes to know.

SPITFIRE (DESIGNER).

Mr. E. Smith: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the proposal of the city of Stoke-on-Trent Education Committee to perpetuate the memory of Reginald Joseph Mitchell, the designer of the Spitfire aircraft; and will he consult the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Aircraft Production, the aircraft industry and other interested people, in order that the proposal can be carried out in a form commensurate with the service rendered by Mr. Mitchell's life's work?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): I understand that a committee under the chairmanship of the Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent has been formed to consider the establishment of a memorial to the late R. J. Mitchell, but I have no information regarding any decision the committee may have reached.

Mr. Smith: When the right hon. Gentleman has received the proposal, will he take into consideration the suggestions made in my Question?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Yes, Sir.

GOLD COAST (GIN IMPORT QUOTA).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a further statement in regard to the fixing of the gin import quota for the Gold Coast for 1941?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): Yes, Sir. The quota for 1941 for civilian requirements in the Gold Coast is being fixed at 73,500 gallons, as compared with the quota of 150,000 gallons for 1940.

Mr. Creech Jones: Can my hon. Friend give us the reasonable prospects of the position?

Mr. Hall: I am afraid I cannot at this stage.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any relation between this matter and the illicit distillation of spirits, and whether there is a drop in imports through illicit distillation?

Mr. Hall: I cannot say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

GRAMPIANS SCHEME.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Transport whether the Government's decision not to take any steps to put the Caledonian Power Scheme into operation implies that they will oppose the Grampians Electricity Supply Draft Provisional Order?

The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): No, Sir. The two schemes are entirely different. I am not in a position to say what views may be expressed upon the proposals in the draft Order by the various Government Departments concerned.

Mr. Keeling: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that the Grampians' scheme, like the Caledonian scheme, would require a great deal of labour and material which might be better employed in waging war?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The Grampians scheme and the Caledonian scheme are two entirely different schemes, which must be looked upon as separate propositions.

Mr. Keeling: That reply is completely irrelevant to my Supplementary Question.

GRID SYSTEM.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the serious inconvenience caused in some parts of the country by the breakdown of the grid system of supplying electricity during the recent snowfall whilst local supplies were still available to consumers not on the grid; and whether, as this is a recurring difficulty, he will enquire into the whole matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am aware of only one case where as a result of the recent snowfall there has been a breakdown of the grid transmission lines of the Central Electricity Board involving a partial loss of supply. The factor of safety of the grid transmission lines is in excess of that laid down by the Electricity Commissioners' regulations, and I do not consider that any inquiry is called for. Moreover, there are numerous instances where the grid system has successfully met the needs of difficult situations; it has indeed proved itself in war to be a national asset of the greatest possible value.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in some parts of the high peaks of Derbyshire the grid system failed for four days and four nights?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I do not think that was on account of the snow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

CANALS AND INLAND WATERWAYS.

Mr. Loftus: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider taking over the canal system of Great Britain for the duration of the war and placing it directly under the Ministry of Transport with a separate unified control independent of the railways?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I have under consideration an investigation into the carriage of traffic on the canals and inland waterways, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. Loftus: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the whole of our canal system was taken over in the last war by the Government, and is it not a fact that if our canal system were efficient, it would relieve a great many of our present transport difficulties?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Of course, I am aware of the first part of the Supplementary Question, or the implication of it; as for the second, I am extremely conscious of the fact that our canal system wants tuning up, and I am gradually becoming very barge-minded.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that if our canal system is to be of any use for war purposes, his investigation and decisive action must be speeded up?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: It has been going on during the last weeks.

ROADS (OBSTRUCTION BY SNOW).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that road traffic conveying munitions and other essential goods was seriously impeded in several parts of the country during the recent snowfall; and will he urge all local authorities to keep the highways clear of snow in future?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Yes, Sir. Both my officers and highway

authorities have made special efforts, within the limits of labour available, to keep roads clear for traffic after the recent snowfall; and in this they have been given valuable assistance by the Military in many instances. Hitherto, Road Fund grants have only been available towards the cost of cutting a track through accumulated snow, and not towards snow clearance. In order to encourage expeditious clearing of snow, I have informed highway authorities that for the current year and for next year the cost of snow clearance will be admitted for grant on all classified roads.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that during the recent snowfall it took about four times as long for lorries to go from Lancashire to South Wales?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I know there were very considerable delays.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that local authorities say they cannot get labour for this work, and will he take steps to get labour?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: If there is no labour, of course I cannot get it. The military authorities, however, are quite prepared to help us.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to give the number of road accidents in which members of the Forces have been involved during the last three months or for such a period as he has been able to obtain information?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 22nd January.

Sir A. Maitland: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend say when it would be convenient for me to put down another Question on this subject?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The figures are coming in, but I am not ready to give them. Perhaps next week will be all right.

Sir John Mellor: Is it not the case that where a civilian is injured through the negligent driving of a Service vehicle the best he can get out of the Government is an ex gratia payment if he is lucky?

Lieut. - Colonel Moore - Brabazon: I always understood that in a question of damage everything paid by the Government is ex gratia and that you could not get it in any other way.

ROAD VEHICLES (MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR).

Mr. G. Macdonald (for Mr. David Adams): asked the Minister of Transport whether he has a statement to make as to the allegations and proposals of the Motor Agents Association, recently made to him relative to the maintenance and repair of commercial and other road vehicles used in civil transport?

Colonel Harold Mitchell: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that great difficulty is being experienced in obtaining spare parts for motor-cars resulting in damaged vehicles frequently lying out of use for many months; and whether he can take any steps to expedite the supply of spa re parts?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): My right hon. Friend has arranged with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply that civil requirements shall be co-ordinated with service requirements. The new arrangements are now being worked out in detail, and they will expedite the provision of civilian spares.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

"BLACK RECORD."

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Information, whether he will take the necessary steps to have translated into as many foreign languages as possible the six addresses broadcast by Sir Robert Vansittart; and whether he will ask the British Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast them in those languages?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir. To broadcast the addresses in question in the manner proposed by my hon. Friend would suggest to listeners abroad that they possessed an official character. This, as explained by the Prime Minister on 28th January, is not the case.

Mr. Benson: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to bury this extraordinarily crude production?

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that these ideas do not represent the ideas of the whole British public?

Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people think the Minister of Information should show a little wider vision, and will he bear in mind that the broadcast of these speeches abroad would have a wonderful effect on our war effort?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the right hon. Gentleman recall the message to the German people broadcast by Mr. Neville Chamberlain on 3rd September, 1939?

STEAMSHIP "EMPRESS OF AUSTRALIA."

Major Neven-Spence: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that great distress was caused to many relatives of the crew of the "Empress of Australia" by the publication in the newspapers on 27th January of information, emanating from the Tropical Radio Station, Florida, which proved to be entirely without foundation; that publication of news of this kind leads to great inconvenience and loss of time in the shipping office concerned through having to answer many hundreds of telephone calls; and will he undertake to ensure in future that no information concerning the loss of a ship is published until the Admiralty has confirmed the loss and has had time to inform the relatives?

Mr. Cooper: I am fully alive to the distress that may be caused to the relatives of crews by the publication in newspapers of foreign reports of loss or damage suffered by British merchant vessels; and not long ago a request was circulated to all editors by the Ministry of Information asking them not to publish such reports. This request has been widely, but not, I regret to say, universally observed. Conversations are proceeding with the object of making an arrangement that will be satisfactory to all concerned.

FORCES WIRELESS PROGRAMME (JAMMING).

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been drawn to the jamming of the Forces programme making reception difficult even in London; and whether he is taking any steps to prevent a recurrence of this?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. The jamming of the Forces programme on the wavelength of 373 metres is of Italian origin. It is aimed at the B.B.C.'s broadcasts in foreign languages, for which this wavelength is used at certain times during the evening. I am afraid there is no practical means at present of preventing a recurrence.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only the Forces programme but also the 261 and the 285 metre wavelengths used for our foreign news broadcasts are interrupted? Does he appreciate the significance of this, and is he taking any measures to prevent a recurrence or to counteract it?

Mr. Cooper: I fully appreciate the significance of it. The main way of counteracting it is to reply by jamming hostile wavelengths, and that we do our best to do within such limits as our resources impose upon us.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE ACCOUNTS.

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the granting of a rebate on telephone charges where a line is temporarily out of use due to enemy action?

The Assistant Postmaster - General (Captain Waterhouse): I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) on 7th November. The concession applies to every subscriber whose line is temporarily out of use owing to enemy action.

Sir F. Sanderson: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend consider that where there is unavoidable but prolonged delay, subscribers should be entitled to some repayment?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir. All subscribers who suffer any delay of this sort get the full concession. There is no question about it.

PRIORITY TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the proved usefulness in present circumstances of the priority telegram service at an extra charge of 6d., he will reconsider providing a priority telephone service for the public at an additional rate?

Captain Waterhouse: The question of providing a priority telephone service for the public at an additional charge has been carefully examined, but I am satisfied that such a service would not be in the best national interests under war conditions.

Sir J. Mellor: In view of the fact that after 7 o'clock at night there is often an indefinite delay in calls being put through, has my hon. and gallant Friend had full regard to the difficulties of those people who sometimes have exceptionally urgent calls to put through?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir, but many of the longest delays are themselves due to the number of priority calls already put through, and if you multiply these calls, the ordinary caller will have no service at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

REQUISITIONING, CHELTENHAM.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, how many houses and other buildings have been requisitioned or a lien taken on them in Cheltenham without being used; and what is the total annual sum that is being paid in rent by his Department for buildings in Cheltenham which they are not using?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): Two requisitioned and two leased houses so far have not been used, but they have been placed at the disposal of other Departments. In addition, 22 rented houses and 16 houses occupied, but available on a retaining fee basis, are held for various purposes. The total annual rents amount to £7,570.

Mr. Lipson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the very great shortage of housing and hotel accommodation in Cheltenham, and will he undertake that as soon as circumstances warrant as many will be released as possible?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir, as soon as circumstances permit.

SKYSCRAPERS, LONDON.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings what is


the policy of his Department with regard to the erection of skyscrapers in London, for business purposes, to replace structures destroyed by enemy action?

Mr. Hicks: My hon. and gallant Friend's Question refers to a particular aspect of redevelopment which cannot be considered by itself. The whole subject is under review.

BOARD OF TRADE (WOMEN TEMPORARY PRINCIPALS).

Miss Rathbone: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that an instruction has been issued that women temporary principals are not entitled to travel first class on the Board's business as are their men colleagues; that this is a departure from the previous custom of allowing this privilege to temporary principals; and whether, in view of this and of the hardship involved, he will give instructions for the removal of this discrimination on grounds of sex?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): Travelling expenses to officers of the Board of Trade are governed by regulations which apply generally throughout the Civil Service. Under these regulations, which were agreed by the Civil Service National Whitley Council in 1935, eligibility for first class travel is determined not by any grade but by salary. A woman temporary principal is allowed first class travel if her salary is £600 or more. For a man the corresponding limit is £750.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that if differences between men and women on the ground of salary are justified, there is no similar justification for differences in comfort when travelling under war conditions, and will he reconsider this matter?

Major Lloyd George: I must point out that this was agreed to by the Civil Service National Whitley Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CLOSED PITS, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the closing of the St. George's

Colliery, Tyldesley, Lancashire; whether he has had information of this from the colliery company; and can he say what steps he proposes to take to prevent the closing down of collieries?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I am informed by the colliery company that in view of the local shortage of man-power they decided to close this pit and to concentrate production at other pits in the neighbourhood. I understand that the representatives of the men were consulted; that employment at neighbouring pits has been offered to all concerned, and that suitable arrangements are being made for the men's transport. A falling off in production should thus be prevented. Wherever the Mines Department can usefully intervene with the object of keeping collieries in production, suitable steps are taken; furthermore, my hon. Friend will remember that a scheme was recently approved under which a levy will be made to ensure that collieries which may be required to resume production at a later date shall, wherever possible, be maintained in a condition to do so.

Mr. Tinker: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great concern in Lancashire about the closing of pits, and does he not agree that before any pit is closed in that county, or anywhere else, the Mines Department ought to be told of the matter and to decide whether it is right to close the pit or not? Will my hon. Friend take steps to see that no colliery is closed without his consent?

Mr. Grenfell: My hon. Friend knows that the intention here is to make better use of the man-power available in Lancashire, and the company claim that production will not decline but will increase as a result of this action.

Mr. Tinker: Before any colliery is closed, will my hon. Friend take power to say whether or not it shall be closed?

Mr. Grenfell: I doubt whether I have power to say whether any colliery shall close or not, but I want to be consulted before a pit is closed down.

Mr. Shinwell: If we are to concentrate on the most efficient units of production in the coal industry, ought it to be left to private interests to determine it? Should it not be part of an organised plan prepared by the Department?

Mr. Grenfell: My hon. Friend knows quite well that if there is any difficulty experienced in working owing to lack of material or man-power, or for any other cause, it is the business of the colliery to inform my Department. In this case that was done, and the plea for the change was that there would be better production by concentrating production in the other pits.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: In regard to man-power, will my hon. Friend consult with the Minister of Labour on this question, because it is a serious question in other collieries in Lancashire?

Mr. Grenfell: There is a very serious problem of man-power in Lancashire, and I welcome the co-operation of anybody and everybody to bring more labour into production in Lancashire. I should like very much to get men brought to that coalfield. It is a fact that the number of men engaged there has declined very seriously during the last two years.

PRICE (PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKINGS).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the continual increases in the price of coal to public utility undertakings, which have necessitated as much as 25 per cent. increases in electricity charges in some instances; and will he take steps to prevent further increases taking place?

Mr. Grenfell: The price of coal is strictly controlled and it has not been increased to public utility undertakings to a greater extent than to other consumers. I know of no increases in coal prices since the war which would have justified a 25 per cent. increase in electricity charges, but, if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will look into them.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these increases in prices by public utility undertakings are causing great hardship, and that they are due to the absence of both a wages and a prices policy by the Government? Will the hon. Gentleman impress this upon his colleagues?

Mr. Grenfell: There is a price policy in regard to coal. The increases have been published and made known to everybody. The total increase allowed in pit-head prices is 4s. 1d. a ton, and this increase

has been made in successive stages to meet circumstances. There is no justification for saying that a 25 per cent. increase is necessary in the price of electricity.

Mr. Lipson: Are not the increases in prices by public utility undertakings said by those who make them to be due to increases in the wages paid to miners? I do not complain about that, but I do complain about there being no definite policy.

Mr. Grenfell: There is a definite policy, and all the changes have been subject to agreement with the men concerned. The men are receiving increased allowances to meet the increased cost of living.

Mr. James Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend recall that in the years when the price of coal to public utility undertakings was being reduced, they made no reduction in their charges?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

TRACTOR DRIVERS.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the widespread complaints by farmers of the difficulty in obtaining the services of skilled tractor drivers, he will give an assurance that such men will be excluded from any further calls for military service; what steps have been taken to provide facilities to train additional men for this purpose; how many additional tractors are likely to come into service in the current year; and how many new drivers may any such training facilities be expected to provide?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): While I can give no assurance that any specific class of workers will be excluded from any further calls for military service, I can assure the hon. Member that the importance of skilled tractor drivers is fully recognised. County War Agricultural Executive Committees have been empowered to arrange for courses of instruction in tractor driving and to pay trainees the appropriate agricultural wage while under tuition. It is expected that committees with full knowledge of the needs of their respective areas will arrange for the training of an adequate supply of tractor workers. As regards the third part of the Question, steps are being taken to ensure, as far as possible, that an adequate supply of new tractors


is maintained, but it would not be in the national interest to publish any estimate of what that supply is likely to be in the current year.

Mr. Shinwell: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that skilled men will not be taken from the farms and put into the Army? Do we not require them on the land at present, in view of the food situation? Are they not of more use there?

Mr. Hudson: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Shinwell: Why should Ministers pass the buck to other Departments? Are we to understand that the question of retaining men on the land is not a matter for the right hon. Gentleman? Will he not give a definite assurance on this matter or, if he cannot do so, will he himself approach the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Hudson: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said in answer to a Question the other day, that we are at present in the closest consultation and are, in fact examining the machinery required to see that the services of specially skilled men are not taken.

Mr. Granville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a serious shortage of agricultural labourers in East Anglia, and will he make representations to the Minister of Labour not to call up any more for the Army?

DAIRY STOCK (STERILITY AND DISEASE).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the present losses caused by the various diseases of dairy cattle in this country, he will arrange for a regular routine examination of all dairy cows in order to facilitate the early detection of mastitis and to allow the earliest possible introduction of measures for its treatment and control?

Mr. Hudson: As indicated in the reply given on 4th February to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire (Colonel Carver), consultations are taking place with a view to the adoption of the most suitable methods of controlling diseases of dairy stock, including mastitis.

BRITISH ARMY (FOOD WASTE).

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there has been any case of waste of food in any camp reported to him within the last six months; and, if so, what action has been taken in each such case?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): Numerous cases of waste or alleged waste have been brought to notice by inspectors and catering advisers and by the public and the Press. All such cases, except where the unit concerned is not identified, are investigated and dealt with by the local military authorities.

Sir L. Lyle: Does not my hon. Friend think it is lamentable that these reports of wastage in camps should be allowed to continue at a time when the civilian population is severely rationed and sailors are losing their lives? Should not something more be done?

Mr. Law: I agree that this is a very serious problem. We are taking all steps, whether by disciplinary action or by instruction, to remedy it, but at the same time I would remind the House that it is not an easy problem. You cannot convert some hundreds of thousands of young Englishmen into prudent housewives overnight.

Mr. Sorensen: What percentage of these complaints has been found to be justified on investigation?

Mr. Law: I cannot say without notice, but there is a certain amount of wastage, although it is less than it was and will continue to get less.

Sir William Davison: Will not my hon. Friend impress on commanding officers of battalions the importance of this matter, and look into the matter personally?

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is still possible for friends to send parcels or money to individual officers or men who are prisoners of war; and, if so, how such proceeding is to be carried out?

Mr. Law: A personal parcel to an individual prisoner of war in Germany may be sent through the War Organisation of


the British Red Cross Society and Order of St. John once every three months. In addition, parcels of tobacco and cigarettes and of books and periodicals may be sent to individuals through firms who have permits for the purpose. I am sending my hon. Friend a leaflet giving full particulars. As regards money, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) on 30th January last.

Mr. Bossom: Cannot this leaflet be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir.

Captain McEwen: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that if a prisoner receives a parcel he does not go into a corner and consume it by himself; it causes great satisfaction to a whole group of men?

Following are the relevant passages from the leaflet mentioned:

"'Personal' Parcels for Prisoners in Enemy (or occupied) Countries.

12. Once every three months the next of kin of a prisoner in enemy territory is allowed to send him a 'personal' parcel. The parcel must not weigh more than 10 lb. when packed, so that when repacked it comes within the international limit of weight. Each parcel must bear a special tie-on label which will be sent periodically direct to the next of kin by the British Red Cross Society. The sender must fill in the label, which will then bear an address in the following form"—

Prisoner of War PERSONAL PARCEL.

Regtl. No. Prisoner of War No.

Rank Name

Camp

C/o British Red Cross Society & Order of St. John,

14, Finsbury Circus,

London, E.C.

The address must also be copied in ink on the cover of the parcel. Unless the parcel bears the special label, it will not be accepted at a Post Office. No postage is required. If the sender requires an acknowledgment of the receipt of the parcel at Finsbury Circus, a stamped addressed envelope should be enclosed.

13. Packing.—The parcels should be packed as for the inland post. The name and address of the sender must be clearly written on the cover of the parcel, except that if the sender is serving in His Majesty's Forces he must not write his own address but must give the address of a relative or friend and may request the relative or friend to forward any acknowledgments received in respect of the parcel. A duplicate list of the contents must be put inside the parcel; forms for this purpose are sent with the tie-on label by the British Red Cross Society.

14. Permissible Articles.—Among the articles which may be sent are the following:—

Blankets.
Brilliantine in tins.
Brushes of all kinds.
Button-cleaning outfits (solid, not liquid polish).
Chewing gum.
Chocolate in slabs.
Cigarette filter tips and cigarette rolling machines but NOT cigarettes or cigarette papers:
Clothing, including underwear, civilian or Service shirts, any footwear, knitted comforts, or uniform. (See para 15 for prohibited articles.)
Coloured silks and cottons, plain linen or canvas for embroidering.
Dentifrice (solid or powder but NOT in tubes).
Frames with talc or unbreakable glass.
Hussifs containing usual items.
Kit bags.
Knitting needles and wool.
Pencils.
Pipes, and tobacco pouch.
Safety razors and blades.
Safety tin openers.
Shoe polish (solid, not liquid or in tubes).
Small musical instruments.
Soap of all kinds.
Towels, face cloths and sponges.

15. Prohibited Articles.—The following articles may not be enclosed:—

(i) Written communications (letters must be sent separately).
(ii) Printed matter.
(iii) Pictorial illustrations and photo-graphs
(iv) Money, stamps, stationery and playing cards.
(v) Articles in tubes, tins and other receptacles, which cannot easily be opened for inspection.
(vi) Spirits or solidified spirit for cooking stoves, matches or any other inflammable material.
(vii) Food, tobacco, cigarettes.
(viii) Photographic apparatus, field glasses, sextants, compasses, electric torches and other instruments of use for naval and military purposes.
(ix) Medical comforts. This includes medicines of all kinds, drugs and bandages.
(x) Complete suits, coloured or grey flannel trousers, sports coats or blazers, mackintoshes, or any kind of overcoat. (These items of clothing, however, may be sent to civilians.)

16. Return of Prohibited Articles.—On receipt of a personal parcel it will be repacked under the supervision of a representative of the Censorship, and any Prohibited articles will be withdrawn and returned to the sender."

Sir F. Sanderson (for Major-General Sir Alfred Knox): asked the Postmaster-General whether he has studied the possibility of conveying all prisoners of war letters by air-mail to and from Geneva?

Captain Waterhouse: Several proposals for improving the letter service to prisoners of war are being examined, including the suggestion mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir W. Davison: How long does it take for a letter from this country to reach prisoner-of-war camps in Germany?

Captain Waterhouse: The time varies considerably from six to 10 or 12 weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MEAT, BACON AND CHEESE (CANNOCK DISTRICT).

Mr. Adamson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, the reason for a shortage of meat, bacon and cheese below the normal ration during two or three weeks in Cannock, Staffordshire, and the adjacent surrounding areas; and whether he can take steps to remedy the matter?

Major Lloyd George: A shortage of meat occurred in the districts referred to during the week ended 18th January owing to the very severe weather conditions then prevailing which seriously delayed transport of imported meat from the cold stores. During the following week deliveries to the butchers were up to requirements, but part of them arrived too late in the week for cutting up and sale to customers. The butchers, however, knowing that the meat was on its way, took orders for it which they were unable to deliver until the following Sunday or Monday. Steps are taken to ensure that every district receives its due allocation of meat and every effort is made to anticipate difficulties which arise through severe weather. As to bacon, my Noble Friend is not aware of any shortage on the ration in the Cannock area. But in a few isolated cases delivery to retail shops has been delayed owing to inclement weather conditions. Cheese is, at present, in short supply, but there is no evidence that the relative rate of distribution in the Cannock area has been less than in other parts of the country.

Mr. Adamson: Is it not possible to arrange for retail distributing depots?

Major Lloyd George: One has to rely to a large extent on the retail distributing

arrangements which were in existence before the war started.

Mr. Adamson: Has not experience been gained during the last two years in the light of transport and other difficulties?

Major Lloyd George: It would be very expensive to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the hon. and gallant Member receive reports from local food officers as to shortages of meat and cheese? Is he aware that in several other parts of the country cheese is absolutely unobtainable and the ration of meat is below the full amount?

FISH (PRICE).

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he is aware that the price of fish is now well above the means of many working-class households; and whether he can fix its prices at a more reasonable figure?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend is aware that the price of fish has increased. I would refer my hon. Friend to the second part of my reply on 29th January to a Question by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern).

MILK (PRICE).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he has considered the letter from the Scottish Old Age Pensioners' Association, protesting against the price of milk as it affects old age pensioners; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter?

Major Lloyd George: A communication has been received from the Angus Area Council of the Scottish Old Age Pensioners' Association appealing for the extension of the benefits of the National Milk Scheme to old age pensioners. As my Noble Friend has already announced, he is unable to consider the extension of the scheme to classes of the population outside the categories for whom it was devised—expectant and nursing mothers and children under five years of age.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible and desirable that this extension should be made to such people as the old age pensioners? Surely the old people deserve special consideration.

Major Lloyd George: I must point out that this scheme was primarily introduced in order to safeguard the health of the rising generation.

SALVAGE ARRANGEMENTS, INVERNESS.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade as representing the Ministry of Food, what deficiencies existed in the existing salvage arrangements in Inverness which required the appointment of a salvage and disposal officer in addition to the existing officials; and what are the food qualifications, experience, salary and other conditions of appointment of the officer now appointed to undertake the work?

Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend recently decided that it was necessary in the national interest to secure the co-ordination of the many interests concerned with food salvage. For this purpose he has appointed in each Food Division an assistant to the Divisional food officer, charged with the responsibility for the supervision and stimulation of food salvage operations. The duties of these officers are administrative rather than technical; they rely for the practical execution of salvage work upon the services of experts. The officer at Inverness receives a salary of £450 a year.

RABBITS (PRICE).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Parliamentary, Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food whether he will give the calculations on which maximum prices for rabbits are based?

Major Lloyd George: The maximum prices for rabbits were fixed in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries at levels sufficient to encourage trapping while at the same time keeping the price to the consumer as low as possible.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my hon. and gallant Friend say whether there is any prospect of this control being removed in order to promote the slaughter of rabbits in the interests of agriculture?

Major Lloyd George: I should not have thought there was any possibility of the

control being removed, because rabbits play an important part in the diet of the nation.

Sir W. Davison: Will my hon. and gallant Friend consult with the Minister of Agriculture, who has just stated that rabbits do not fulfil an important part with regard to food supplies, while on the other hand they destroy a great deal of the efforts at producing food in this country?

Major Lloyd George: Consultations with my right hon. Friend have taken place.

Sir J. Mellor: Has not the Minister of Agriculture said that rabbits are so destructive that their food value does not justify their existence?

Major Lloyd George: That may be so, but the prices fixed are sufficient to make it worth while catching them.

EGGS (PRICE).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he will give the calculations on which maximum prices for eggs are based?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to my answers to-day to similar Questions on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire (Colonel Carver).

Sir J. Mellor: Has my hon. and gallant Friend taken into account all the circumstances of specialised poultry farms?

Major Lloyd George: There are many forms of egg production in this country, specialised and others, and we have to take an average view in regard to them.

IMPORTED FOOD GIFTS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, the approximate number and total weight of food parcels received in this country from abroad in each of the last three months; and whether he will consider utilising the shipping space so taken up in importing bulk supplies of food for the population as a whole?

Major Lloyd George: Whilst there is no information as to the number and weight of parcels of food gifts there is no evidence


that more than a small quantity of mail space is being occupied with these gifts. If it becomes apparent that substantial shipping space is so occupied, the policy on this matter will be reconsidered.

Mr. Parker: Does not the Minister think it is a very unfair way of importing food?

Major Lloyd George: There is no evidence that it is being done on anything but a very small scale, but if it becomes substantial, the whole thing will be reconsidered.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

SHEEPSKINS (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Mr. Haslam: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has considered the representations from the Fellmongers Association, representing England and Wales, and from the Scottish Association of Skinners, representing Scotland, representing 80 firms in all, on the subject of a newly started firm in Northern Ireland, the United Chrome Tanners, whose direction is controlled by aliens and who have recently been allotted a large number of Irish skins by the Wool Control; is he aware that this allocation means a serious reduction of skins to certain English and Scottish firms, damages their business which was based on the number of skins allotted them at the commencement of control in January, 1940, and which was not in excess of their capacity; and, as this arbitrary change of allotments has aggrieved the two associations, will he receive a deputation from them to discuss the matter?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 22nd January to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). I shall, however, be ready to ask my Noble Friend the Joint-Parliamentary Secretary to receive a deputation from these two associations if they so desire.

TINPLATE INDUSTRY.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent it is proposed to curtail the productive capacity of the tinplate industry; how many workers are likely to be affected thereby; and what steps he is taking to adapt the redundant plant to war production?

Sir A. Duncan: To meet increasing demands for steel of other forms, the production of tinplate will be progressively reduced to some 25 per cent. below the level at which the industry has recently been operating. Several thousand tinplate workers will be affected and every effort is being made, both by the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Labour, to secure their absorption in vital war work. From a preliminary report by the Committee of the Area Board for Wales which is considering this matter, it appears doubtful whether any but a small part of the plant itself would be suitable for war production.

Mr. Griffiths: Since the industry is being curtailed in its productive capacity as a result of Government decision, will the Government exercise some influence so as to spread this unfortunate burden over the area? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that during the last war some of this plant was adapted for war production?

Sir A. Duncan: As regards the first part of the Question, I should he very glad indeed to discuss it with my hon. Friend. In regard to the second part, I cannot add to the information I have given, namely that the report does not indicate that there is much hope of the plant being of use for war work.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider proposals put forward by the people in the industry for the adaptation of the redundant plant to war production?

Sir A. Duncan: Certainly, Sir.

KITCHEN WASTE (PIG FOOD).

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Supply what quantity of feeding-stuffs is now being collected for pigs weekly by local authorities in the London County Council area, and elsewhere, respectively; and whether there has been an increase or decrease in recent months?

Sir A. Duncan: The total amount of kitchen waste now being collected weekly by the 320 local authorities making special collections in England, Wales and Scotland is 2,250 tons, of which approximately 200 tons are collected in the London County Council area. The weekly tonnage collected in the London County Council area has remained constant over recent months.

Mr. Parker: How many pigs does that maintain?

Sir A. Duncan: I cannot say.

TRAVELLERS TO EIRE (STERLING NOTES).

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the restriction on travellers to Eire of taking more than £25 in sterling notes from this country without a permit has been withdrawn; and to what extent the British Treasury exercises powers to prevent money taken in this way to Eire being subsequently sent abroad?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Since Eire is in the sterling area, funds may be remitted there freely through the ordinary banking channels, and it has been decided that no useful purpose is served by restricting this particular method of taking money. As regards remittances out of Eire, an exchange control essentially similar to our own has been imposed, and is exercised, by the Government of Eire.

Mr. Lewis: Are we to understand that these privileges are to be extended to travellers to other parts of the Empire?

Captain Crookshank: The Question on the Paper deals only with Eire. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put his Question down.

Mr. Lewis: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give any reason why these special facilities should be granted to those who have done nothing at all to help us in our common peril?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

SHELTERS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the resolution sent to him by Tyldesley Urban District Council asking the Government to meet the cost of the construction and equipment of all air-raid shelters put up by local authorities as they consider it is not treating fairly those who started early in getting ready by limiting the payment from 19th October, 1940; and will he say what answer he has given to this request?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on Thursday last to the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell).

Mr. Tinker: Does the hon. Gentleman think it altogether fair to penalise local authorities who have to carry out orders, because the future policy will not be a good one if that is the case?

Mr. Mabane: My right hon. Friend said he was concerned to get speedy action, but he could not hold out any promise that action would be retrospective.

Mr. Silverman: Is it the policy of the Department to take speedy action by penalising speedy action?

AIR RAIDS (INFORMATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Home Secretary whether private notices are issued to the Press on each day following enemy air attacks indicating the districts in which these attacks have occurred; and why the same information is not given to Members of Parliament whose constituencies are affected?

Mr. Mabane: The Press is informed in confidence at the end of each night when air raids have taken place, which are the districts in which bombing has occurred. This is done, to enable them to handle with discretion and in proper perspective the very considerable amount of information about bombing and bomb damage which reaches the Press from its own sources. As regards the second part of the Question, the arrangements which have already been made for the information of hon. Members are, I believe, working well, while the procedure suggested by my hon. Friend has many difficulties and would not be likely to be so satisfactory to hon. Members. Nevertheless my right hon. Friend will have it examined further.

Sir L. Lyle: Would it not appear from that answer that the Department considers that Members of Parliament are less reliable than the Press?

Mr. Mabane: Certainly not.

Mr. Loftus: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many districts the police


furnish accurate and quick information to Members of Parliament who ask for it?

Mr. Logan: Is it possible to arrange for Members of Parliament to live in bombed areas?

Mr. Sorensen: Could not the hon. Gentleman recommend to appropriate local authorities that they should keep their local Members of Parliament in touch with any air-raid events?

Mr. Mabane: The hon. Member has already had a letter addressed to him informing him that arrangements have been made in that sense.

Mr. Logan: I am sorry I asked the hon. Gentleman that question.

INTERNEES.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether internees returned from the Dominions to this country are given a period of leave before commencing military or other duties or pending further consideration of their case; and whether he will consider granting free travelling passes to them for this purpose?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): Those internees brought back from the Dominions to this country who are not released on arrival at the port remain in custody until their release is authorised either on actual enlistment or for other purposes. On release their fares are paid to their destinations.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is it impossible to let these people have seven days' leave to see their people?

Mr. Peake: There is a Question on the Paper for a later date dealing with that.

Mr. Graham White: Where are these returned aliens held in custody?

BLACK-OUT OFFENCES (PENALTIES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of considerable diversity in fines, ranging from £2 to £7 10s., imposed by different magistrates both in the same area, and in diverse areas, for black-out first offences frequently of a relatively minor character; and whether, in view of the hardship thus imposed on poor people, he will encourage a greater measure of uniformity in penalties and of the practice of warning a first offender in lieu of prosecution?

Mr. Peake: As was pointed out in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on 22nd August last, it cannot be assumed, without full knowledge of the facts, that cases which are apparently similar are in fact comparable. It is the duty of the court to decide, having regard to the circumstances of each individual case—which may differ widely—what penalty is adequate for the purpose of deterring both the offender before the court and other people from committing offences of this type. The amount of the penalty will also depend on the means of the offender, which, so far as it is known, the court is bound to take into consideration. Having regard to the danger arising from black-out offences, my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot accept the view that a first offence should necessarily be met by a warning without regard to the circumstances.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there are wide diversities of penalties for apparently the same offence? Could not he recommend to justices that they should take that factor seriously into consideration?

Mr. Peake: Black-out offences vary in magnitude and in duration, and the court must take all these factors into consideration.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it not a fact that whatever fine is imposed, it bears no relation to the loss of life or damage that may be done by enemy air action?

REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give a list of Regional Commissioners and their assistants at the present date, and the salaries paid, respectively: showing in which cases payment has been, or is being, respectively, refused?

Mr. Mabane: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the names of Regional Commissioners, Deputy Regional Commissioners, and Scottish District Commissioners and Deputy District Commissioners in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The maximum annual rates of salary payable to Regional Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners are £2,500 and £1,000 respectively, and to District Commissioners and Deputy District Commissioners £1,000 and £750 respectively.


It was left to the individual Commissioners to decide what remuneration, if any, they would accept within the maxima allowable. A number of them have wished to give their services without accepting any salary, while others have not been in a position to give their services

Region.
Regional Commissioner.
Deputy Regional Commissioner.


Northern (Northumberland, Durham, and North Riding of Yorkshire).
Sir Arthur Lambert, M.C.
J. J. Lawson, Esq., M.P.


North Eastern (East and West Ridings of Yorkshire and City of York.
The Rt. Hon. Lord Harlech, G.C.M.G.
E. Dunn, Esq., M.P.


North Midland (Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Rutland and most of Derbyshire).
The Lord Trent.
H. A. S. Wortley, Esq.


Eastern (Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Bedfordshire, and those parts of Essex and Hertfordshire not included in London Region).
Sir Will Spens, C.B.E.
The Earl of Cranbrook.


London (Counties of London and Middlesex and parts of Essex, Hertfordshire, Surrey and Kent).
Senior Regional Commissioner:



Sir Ernest Gowers, K.C.B., K.B.E.




Regional Commissioners:




Admiral Sir Edward Evans, K.C.B., D.S.O.




Charles W. Key, Esq., M.P.



Southern (Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, part of Dorset and those parts of Surrey not included in London Region).
Harold Butler, Esq., C.B.
R. H. Bernays, Esq., M.P.


South Western (Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, and most of Dorset).
General Sir Hugh Elles, K.C.B., K.C.V.O., K.C.M.G.
Maj-Gen. G. M. Lindsay, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O.


Wales (the Principality and Monmouthshire).
Joint Regional Commissioners:



Robert Richards, Esq., M.P.




Col. Sir Gerald T. Bruce, K.C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O.



Midland (Staffordshire, Shropshire, Warwickshire Worcestershire and Herefordshire).
The Earl of Dudley, M.C.
S. J. Grey, Esq.


North Western (Cumberland, Westmoreland, Lancashire, and most of Cheshire).
Sir Harry Graham Haig, K.C.S.I., C.I.E.
Col. T. Blatherwick, C.B., D.S.O., M.C.


Scotland
…
…
…
…
The Rt. Hon. Thomas Johnston, M.P.
The Earl of Rosebery, D.S.O., M.C,


South Eastern (Sussex and those portions of Kent not included in London Region).
The Rt. Hon. Sir Auckland Geddes, G.C.M.G., K.C.B.
Viscount Knollys, M.B.E., D.F.C.

without remuneration. In these circumstances the House will, I hope, not wish me to enter into any further details of the particular amounts paid to the various Commissioners.

Following are the names:

SCOTTISH DISTRICTS.


District.
District Commissioner.
Deputy District Commissioner.


South Eastern (Berwick, Roxburgh, Peebles, Selkirk and Lothians).
Will Y. Darling, Esq., C.B.E., M.C.



Eastern (Angus, Perthshire, Fife and Kinross).
John Phin, Esq., J.P., LL.D.
R. Nimmo, Esq., J.P.


North Eastern (Aberdeen, Kincardine, Moray, Banff, Orkney and Zetland).
Alexander T. Morrison, Esq., J.P.
H. W. Scarth, Esq., Col. J. Dawson, D.S.O.


Northern (Sutherland, Caithness, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness and Nairn).
Col. The Hon. I. M. Campbell, D.S.O., M.A.



Western (Argyllshire, Bute, Dumbartonshire, Stirlingshire, Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, Wigtown, Kirkcudbright and Dumfriesshire).
Sir Stephen Bilsland, Bart., M.C.
William Quinn, Esq., J.P.

PALESTINE (CITRUS INDUSTRY).

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the grave difficulties facing the Palestine citrus trade as a result of the total lack of shipping facilities for the export of this year's crop, other than shipping controlled by His Majesty's Government which might be made available, he has now considered what adequate assistance could be rendered to the citrus growers so as to enable them to keep their groves under cultivation and to tide over the present critical period?

Mr. George Hall: This matter has for some time formed the subject of correspondence with the High Commissioner for Palestine, and comprehensive proposals for assisting the industry have been received in the course of the last few days. These proposals are now under urgent examination.

Mr. Beaumont: When is it likely that my hon. Friend will be in a position to make a statement?

Mr. Hall: In the course of a few weeks.

Mr. G. Macdonald (for Mr. David Adams): asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, for the better organisation of the citrus industry, it is the intention of the High Commissioner for Palestine to establish a Citrus Control Board to impose statutory supervision over the whole industry; and whether both Jews and Arabs will be represented upon this authority?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir. This Board has already been set up and includes both Jewish and Arab members.

CLOTHING AND DRAPERY TRADE (QUOTAS).

Mr. Granville (for Sir Henry Morris-Jones): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the present unsatisfactory position relating to quotas in the clothing and drapery trade; and will he consider ruling that no compensation or reward be paid to any intermediary between acquirer and disposer of quota and that no disposer be paid a commission of more than, say, 5 per cent. on the value of his quota?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. I am aware of certain undesirable practices in connection with the sale of goods controlled under the Limitation of Supplies Orders. My right hon. Friend has under active consideration proposals for checking these, and he will certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

"National Expenditure, That they give leave to the Lord Beaverbrook to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee on National Expenditure, if his Lordship think fit."

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered, "That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships


will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Hyndley to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Transport Services appointed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure."—[Sir A. Gridley.]

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

WELFARE OF NAVAL PERSONNEL.

Mr. Lathan: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the Welfare of Naval Personnel, and move a Resolution.

INDUSTRIAL MAN-POWER.

Mr. Simmonds: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the Better Use of Industrial Man-Power, and move a Resolution.

RHODESIAN COPPER BELT (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. Creech Jones: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the Labour Conditions in the Rhodesian Copper Belt, and move a Resolution.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the deficiencies of the National Health Insurance Act, and move a Resolution.

ARMY AGRICULTURAL SCHEME.

Lieut.-Colonel Boles: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the Army Agricultural Scheme, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (RESEARCH).

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the Necessity for Research, and move a Resolution.

TRANSPORT.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the Position of Transport, and move a Resolution.

TRAINER AND TROOP-CARRYING AIRCRAFT.

Lord Apsley: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for a great production of Army Co-operation Trainer and Troop-Carrying Aircraft, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.

Mr. Liddall: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the Importance of the Naval Reserve in Wartime, and move a Resolution.

PROPAGANDA.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the Organisation of Propaganda, and move a Resolution.

EXPORT TRADE.

Mr. Adamson: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the Export Trade, and move a Resolution.

FOOD SUPPLY.

Mr. Burke: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to Food Supply, and move a Resolution.

TROOPS (WELFARE AND EDUCATION).

Mr. Sorensen: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the Welfare and Education of the Troops, and move a Resolution.

PRIVILEGE.

Colonel Gretton: Yesterday I called the attention of the House to a question of Privilege arising from a letter published in the "Times" of 31st January, sent by a firm of solicitors on behalf of their client, Mr. Weininger, who was one of the witnesses appearing before the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Member. I feel a difficulty in carrying the matter further, as I am a Member of the Committee of Privileges, and this may be a matter that may come before that Committee. I have, therefore, asked my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) to explain the circumstances


to the House and move the Resolution that may be necessary.

Mr. Spens: I have here a copy of the "Times" of 31st January last, containing the letter in question, to which I desire to draw your attention, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member bring it to the Table?

Whereupon the hon. and learned Member handed the document to the CLERK OF THE HOUSE, who proceeded to read it, as followeth:

"MR. WEININGER.

To the Editor of the Times.

SIR,

In your issue of January 22 you published the report made by the Boothby Select Committee, and now that the debate in the House of Commons has terminated we are asked by Mr. Weininger, for whom we act as solicitors, to refer to one of their conclusions which personally and seriously affects our client's character. The conclusion is that in which it is stated that our client promised to pay Mr. Boothby a considerable sum of money in return for services to be rendered by way of political speeches and pressure upon Ministers and Treasury officials. This, were it true, would be an odious as well as a serious charge. Mr. Weininger has, however, no means of dealing with it other than through us and, as we trust we may expect, through the publicity which the Times always affords in a proper case.

Mr. Weininger's answer is that there is absolutely no foundation for any such conclusion. He gave evidence at length before the Committee and at no time, nor by any question addressed to him, was it suggested that such a bargain existed. We would recall that in the first instance our client, who had known Mr. Boothby for some years, approached him in a purely business capacity as a member of a well known and reputable financial house in the City. Mr. Boothby was to try to negotiate with the Czech Government the release of the Weininger family assets blocked in Prague. With the entry of Germany into CzechoSlovakia this became impossible, and the agreement between Mr. Weininger and Mr. Boothby came to an end. Thereafter the position of Mr. Boothby's personal finances became exceedingly acute and there followed the promise by Mr. Weininger to assist him to the whole extent of his personal fortune. This promise arose out of the undoubtedly deep and true friendship between the two men and was unclouded by any base suggestion of services to be rendered.

These are the facts as we know them, and we trust that you will deem it only fair that they should be recorded through the medium of your newspaper.

Yours, &c.,

JOYNSON-HICKS & Co

Lennox House, Norfolk Street, W.C.2.

January 30."

Mr. Spens: You, Mr. Speaker, and the House will appreciate that that letter was written for publication in order to challenge, on behalf of Mr. Weininger, the existence of any facts for one of the principal findings of the Select Committee. In support of this challenge, there is a carefully prepared and concise statement of the story originally put before the Select Committee by Mr. Weininger and by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). That was the story which the Select Committee investigated and which they were unable to accept by reason of the existence of other evidence, contemporary and otherwise, which drove the Committee to find other and quite different facts. The facts so found by the Committee and the other evidence on which those facts were found were fully set out in the Report of the Select Committee, which was published on 21st January last and was approved by this House by the Resolution of 28th January last. None the less, in this letter, which is dated 30th January, and was published on 31st January, the writers repeat the Weininger version of the story, and continue:
Those are the facts as we know them.
And they ask that they should be recorded through the medium of the "Times." I respectfully suggest that for a responsible firm of solicitors to write a letter for publication in a newspaper directly challenging the existence of facts for the findings of a Select Committee of this House after the Report of the Committee has been approved by the unanimous Resolution of this House, to support the challenge by the statement that the facts are as they know them, and to put forward the version which has been given in evidence and not accepted by the Select Committee, is a very serious matter. It clearly is intended to make the public believe, by the repetition of this partial statement, that there was no foundation for one of the principal conclusions formed by the Committee and approved by this House. It reflects, I submit, both on the manner in which the Committee fulfilled the task entrusted to it and the propriety of the approval by this House of the Report of the Select Committee. I respectfully suggest that it raises a prima facie case of breach of Privilege, and I would request your Ruling on it.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has said, and I am hound to say that I have come to the conclusion that he has made a prima facie case for a breach of Privilege.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, "That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges."

Colonel Gretton: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
It has come to my knowledge through a most reliable channel that a letter offering an apology to this House for the matters complained of is in preparation by those concerned. It has not been possible to produce the letter at this day's Sitting, and I therefore venture to suggest to the House that we might adjourn this discussion until a later Sitting, when I am sure the letter will be available and the House can consider whether it is acceptable.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in a matter which is a corollary to your Ruling that a breach of Privilege has been committed by this Erin of solicitors? May I ask whether publication of this letter by the "Times" newspaper is also a breach of Privilege?

Mr. Speaker: I should say it was, but the facts will come before the Committee of Privileges rather than before me.

Mr. Buchanan: I rise only to say this for myself, personally. I think this thing has been laboured and raised wrongly. The whole thing would have been better left dead. The Committee's evidence was accepted. The letter is only to be taken as a partial statement. From my point of view, the whole thing has been unduly and unnecessarily laboured, and I think we would be well advised not to raise the matter at all, because I do not think that the great mass of the people will pay any attention to what is a very partial statement.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the remark made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) that certain information has come to his knowledge, may I be allowed to say that information has come to my knowledge from a very reliable source that the fear of exposure of corruption, which is rotten and widespread, arising out of this case was one

of the reasons for the suppression of the "Daily Worker"?

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed upon the first Sitting Day after 9th February.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE (MONEY) (No. 2).

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to war damage to immovable property and to goods, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of such sums as may be required to be paid into the Road Fund for the purpose of the payment thereout of grants to local authorities in Great Britain in respect of contributions required by or under the said Act to be made by them towards the expense of making payments in respect of war damage to highways; and
(b) of any expenses incurred by the Public Works Loan Commissioners in discharging any liability imposed upon them by virtue of any provisions of the said Act relating to contributions."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 4th February].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 19.—(Rights over against mort- gagees in certain cases.)

Sir Harold Webbe: I beg to move, in page 16, line 33, to leave out Sub-section (5).
This Amendment stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and other hon. Members. My hon. Friend who was to have moved this Amendment has asked me to convey to you, Sir Dennis, and the Members of the Committee his apologies for his inability to be present, because he is engaged on the very laudable work of launching a War Weapons Week in his constituency. Subsection (5), which this Amendment seeks to remove from the Bill, provides that the provisions of Clause 19 shall apply only in those cases where the net annual value of the property is £100 or less. I submit that any such limitation of the provisions of the Clause is illogical, and the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be to extend to all mortgagees regardless of the value of the property the obligations which are placed upon the limited class to which the Sub-section refers.
I am aware that yesterday there was considerable discussion on this general question, and I owe the Committee an apology for not having been in my place during that discussion. But I hope it will be forgiven to a comparatively new Member that he did not realise that, on a Clause which was concerned solely with persons who were to receive compensation, a discussion would take place on the related but, I submit, entirely distinct question of the persons from whom contributions should be exacted. I shall try not to cover too much of the ground which was covered yesterday, but I feel that I must ask the Committee to examine in relation to this Sub-section some of the arguments which have been adduced in support of the exemption of mortgagees from any obligation to contribute.
The first argument is what I may call the sanctity of contracts argument. It is argued that to exact from the mortgagee a contribution under this Measure, would be to strike at the sanctity of the contract between the mortgagee and the mortgagor. Considerable argument was put forward in support of that view by various hon. Members. I should be the last, having regard to my own political convictions and the constituency which I have the honour to represent, to seek to do anything which would impair confidence in mortgages and similar investments, but I submit that this argument is academic rather than real in the circumstances of to-day. I am not a lawyer, but I have often heard it laid down by judges and other lawyers as a sound principle of law that it is not sufficient to consider merely the terms of a contract but that one must, on occasion, go behind the actual letter of the contract and examine what is in the minds of the contracting parties. I think there is no doubt about what was in the minds of the parties to a mortgage contract. The mortgagee considered that he was entitled to rely on the personal undertaking of the mortgagor, the property being, so to speak, his collateral security. It was the responsibility of the mortgagee to take such steps as he considered necessary to protect that collateral security in his own interests against the hazards to which it might be exposed. If he failed to do so and disaster followed, then, so to speak, his blood must be on his own head.
That was accepted by the mortgagor as the position. But the hazards to which this Bill relates are of quite an exceptional character. They certainly could not have been in the mind of either party at the time the mortgage contract was made. Therefore, I suggest that to impose on the mortgagee a responsibility for making contributions does not, in that sense, strike at the sanctity of the contract. Moreover, this Clause as it now stands, with this Sub-section included, is to me utterly illogical. If it is proper and right to exact from the mortgagee a contribution when the annual value is £100 or less, how can it become a crime to exact a similar contribution when the annual value reaches £101? I suggest that this is an illogical distinction and an illogical limitation and, if we are to rely on a general argument of that character, it must be all or nothing.
There is the second argument that the mortgagee is not, in fact, interested. That also begins, apparently, when the annual value exceeds £100. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) pressed that argument very strongly, and in support of his contention that this was the position, he said that never in his long experience had he come across a case of a mortgagor being successful with his property and going back to the mortgagee and offering him an increased rate of interest or a share of the property. If I may follow that argument, I would say that in my own much more limited experience I have never heard of a case of a banker who went to his client and said that he was so pleased with his bargain and so confident of the security of the client's personal undertaking, that he would hand him back the deeds of the property which, in a moment of unwarranted suspicion, he had asked him to deposit. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) yesterday, in a speech which, I think, many Members of the Committee will deplore, suggested that the mortgagor in fact left the mortgagee wittingly to rely solely on the property. I think he did less than justice, particularly to the small house-property owner. The phenomenal success of the building societies is evidence that a very large part of the property owners who con tract mortgage obliga-

tions take a much higher view of their responsibilities than was suggested. But we cannot be blind to the fact that a disaster such as this Bill contemplates might, at any moment, make the mortgagor, however eager to carry out his obligations, completely unable to do so and it cannot be denied that in such circumstances this Measure would be of very substantial benefit to the mortgagee. On that, the general ground, it seems that he ought to pay. In any case I cannot, as I say, understand the logic of calling for a contribution from the mortgagee when the annual value is less than £100 and not doing so when the value exceeds that amount.
Finally, there is the argument of practicability. If there is the will, there is the way, and suggestions have been made by various hon. Members of ways in which to meet this general question. I conclude with one small general point. The Chancellor has told us that this Bill may involve expenditure by the Government of very large sums and that he may have to come back to Parliament to ask for substantial increases in the sums which are contemplated under it. I suggest that if those greater demands have to be met, the broader the back on which the load can be placed the better. Here is a field for exacting contributions, a field of people who, as it seems to me, might justly be called upon to contribute. For those reasons I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider this Amendment.

The Chairman: Before the Debate continues, may I say that I allowed the hon. Member to go to considerable lengths as he was moving an Amendment, but the Committee will recollect that the whole question of this limitation of the mortgages concerned was very fully discussed yesterday on Clause 10. It is true that the question arises in two different forms, one with regard to the contributions and the other with regard to the capital value of the mortgages, but I am sure that I may, without endeavouring to exercise undue authority, rely on the Committee not to discuss the principle over again. We must treat that as having already been decided, and, strictly speaking, subject to a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think that this Amendment ought to be put to the Committee without further Debate.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have nothing to add to the statement which I made yesterday on the general question, but I would like to say a word upon the Amendment to delete Sub-section (5). It is true that certain figures are set out in the Clause, £100 in one case and £250 in another, but I am not wedded to those figures. Amendments are put forward suggesting other figures. I propose, with the assent of the Committee, to take the matter into consideration with a view to meeting what I understand to be the wishes of the Committee that the amount should be increased. I will very gladly do this. I hope to have an opportunity during the next few days of seeing whether we can get agreement upon the figures.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration also the agricultural point of view? I have an Amendment down to alter the figure £250.

Sir K. Wood: Certainly, I will, and I will have a talk with my hon. and gallant Friend about it.

Sir H. Webbe: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. Webbe: I beg to move, in page 17, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (6).
I will not repeat the arguments which have already been advanced in regard to this matter, but another small point arises on this Sub-section. It seems to differentiate unfairly between two kinds of case. The first is the case of a man who, not being very prudent, perhaps, entered into the obligation of house ownership on the strength of a mortgage from a building society. He gets relief, but there is no relief for a man who, with his own money, built a house and subsequently entered into a mortgage. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the point.

Sir K. Wood: I cannot add anything to what I have said, but I will certainly consider that point.

Sir H. Webbe: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Major Lloyd: So far as my recollection goes, nothing has been said about the position in which certain dwelling houses in Scotland find themselves because of the Rent Restriction Acts. I hope the Chancellor can say a word on this matter, which will satisfy me and many others in Scotland.

Sir K. Wood: I have received various representations on the particular matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. We are giving consideration to it, and it will be dealt with when we come to the Scottish Clauses of the Bill.

Major Milner: This is an extremely important Clause, and we ought to have a word about the principle of it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We object to the Clause because it is full of inconsistencies and illogicalities, which are very difficult to follow. There are three principal points. One is that a mortgagee shall make a contribution, and the limits of one-half and three-quarters are very difficult to approve. There seems no pressing reason why those particular proportions should have been put in rather than any other. I still adhere to the suggestion I made that the mortgagee should contribute in accordance with the proportion which the amount advanced on the relevant date bears to the value of the property on the relevant date. That would do away with the jumps about which we have heard in the course of the debate.
The second inconsistency is the limit which was discussed by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe) a few moments ago. There again, it is extremely difficult to see why limits should be placed on the nature of the property which has to be considered contributory property. I should have thought that in all these matters the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to obtain the largest possible income from the fund, but all these limits are placed in the way. There is the case of small commercial property which may be just as important to the individuals concerned as other property, but which does not obtain any contribution from the mortgagee. It seems an illogical and inconsistent procedure. I can see no reason why, if I had a mortgage on my office, I should not be entitled to a contribution from the mortgagee, just as if I had a mortgage on my house. We all understood the overriding principle to be


that the burden should be shared, but the burden is not being shared, in that respect. The individual who happens to be the owner of a particular type of property is legislated against in these proposals. I gather that the Chancellor will do his best to include all classes of property in the Bill, but all mortgagees should contribute in proportion to the advance they have made. That seems logical, and any other proposal lands us in considerable difficulty.
I have some sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division. We are in a war, and many people in the country now have to draw on their capital if they happen to be in a line of business which obtains no benefit, or even suffers loss, by reason of the war. I see no logic in this contributory provision being limited to the case of the acquisition of property. I may have, for no particular reason of my own, acquired a property; why should I not be able to go to a building society or to some other institution and obtain an advance? That institution would know why I was asking for that advance and that they would have to make a contribution. Provided they knew that, they could make some provision by way of additional interest, and some portion of the additional burden would be borne by the mortgagor. The whole Clause is very illogical, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to alter it. I hope it will be altered, at any rate in respect to the half and the three-quarters, which I gather may now be the case. The nature of the contributory properties should be altered. I should like them not to be limited to residential properties but to be extended to commercial properties as well. There is also the question whether it is right to limit contributions to cases where the mortgage has been taken up merely to acquire property, or whether a person is not entitled to obtain a contribution from the mortgagee. I hope these considerations will be borne in mind by the Chancellor before the Report stage.

Mr. Woodburn: I would like to tell the Chancellor that a great many of my hon. Friends and I are still not satisfied with the position of the owner-occupier, and I hope that before this Bill becomes

law something will have been done to safeguard that particular interest. Most of the discussion has been concerned with the unfairness as between the mortgagee and the mortgagor, but there is also the unfairness as between one mortgagee and another mortgagee, because one has to pay and the other has not to pay. I would suggest respectfully to the Chancellor that he should take into consideration the suggestion which I made at the end of the Debate on the last Sitting Day, which would put all mortgagees on the same basis of fairness so far as concerns the contributions to the State for this purpose. The Chancellor could levy upon them, according to the mortgage and independent of the annual value of the property, a sum according to the capital borrowed. I recommended one shilling for every £10 borrowed. Assuming one had a £1,000 house, then there would be a £50 assessment. I recognise that that may be excessive. It could be a smaller sum than one shilling for every £10 borrowed. Every person deducting from the mortgage would be able to do it without entering into any mathematical calculation. There would be no complaint between mortgagees. There would be a pro rata basis to a large extent, so far as the mortgagor is concerned, and it would eliminate a great number of the difficulties which are bound to accrue to the Chancellor when this Bill becomes law.

Mr. Benson: When this Bill was first introduced my voice was that of one crying in the wilderness. Every other hon. Member praised the Bill and I singled out for comment this one question dealing with the mortgagee and mortgagor. Now I have changed my point of view. I am not now at all interested in whether the mortgagee is made a contributor or not. In fact, on the whole, I think that I would rather he was not made a contributor for this reason, that if he does not contribute he is in nothing like the same strong moral position as he would be if he did contribute. I am far more concerned with what the position will be after the war as between the mortgagee and the mortgagor who has suffered. At the present moment the mortgagee is being protected without making any contribution. The mortgagor is making all the contributions.

Sir K. Wood: My hon. Friend has made an independent contribution as he so often does. I make no comment upon the moral side of the matter. If I may say so respectfully all my hon. Friends have quite rightly urged these points to me. They have not wasted time, because this is an important Clause. But I must stand by the general principles which I have enunciated to the Committee. It is quite true that the Treasury and the Chancellor are naturally interested in getting all the contributions they can, and my only observation is that the Committee may be assured that it has only been the most formidable obstacles and objections which have made me put that consideration on one side. However, in the light of the Debate on the last Sitting day, I will consider certain points which were raised by my hon. Friends in all quarters of the Committee, for instance, points with regard to the question of amounts in this Clause. I am also impressed by the criticisms about the March, 1939, aspect of this matter. Therefore, within the limitations which I have mentioned, I will consider those points.

Mr. Silkin: I hope that the Chancellor will not limit himself to the particular matters which he has mentioned. The point which the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) has mentioned is an important one. All I ask is that the Chancellor will bear that point in mind.

Sir K. Wood: Certainly, I will.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Indemnities to be paid notwithstanding covenants to pay outgoings.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 17, to leave out lines 14 to 17.
Clause 20 provides that the contributions already dealt with in the preceding Clause are payable irrespective of any contracts which may be made between the parties for making different arrangements; that is to say, you cannot contract out of the arrangements which are set out in Clause 19. But it then goes on to say:
Nothing in this Section shall he construed as prohibiting the making or carrying out of any agreement expressly varying the ultimate incidence of instalments of contributions as between the parties to the agreement.

The first party says, "You cannot contract out," and it makes a proviso which enables you to contract out. This proviso will act oppressively against the small man. Obviously, the only man who has an interest in contracting out is the mortgagee or the ground landlord or any other person who is making a contribution. The direct contributor will have no interest in contracting out at all. Pressure will be put upon him to make him enter into a fresh agreement for the purpose of enabling persons who have to make contributions to avoid making them. I can imagine what would happen in the case of mortgages. A mortgagor may be in default in making a payment. The mortgagee would come along and say, "I will give you time to pay, providing you enter into a fresh agreement under which I have no longer to make a contribution under this Act." The mortgagor, if he cannot find the money, will be compelled to make an arrangement of that sort. That happened under the Rent Restrictions Act. Landlords compelled tenants to enter into fresh agreements under which they were able to avoid the restrictions of the Act, and I am afraid that the same thing will happen here. It will only be of benefit to the person who is making the contribution and not to a direct contributor. I hope the Chancellor will see his way to leave out that proviso and prevent contracting out.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I think my hon. Friend may not quite appreciate the purpose of the first part of this Clause, which is to prevent covenants already in leases or mortgages from being construed, as they might otherwise be, as being applicable to the contribution. For instance, a covenant according to which one party or the other is responsible for outgoings might, apart from the first part of this Clause, be construed as meaning that the party concerned cannot recover from the other party what under the Bill he ought to be entitled to recover, namely, a part of the contribution. I think everyone agrees that we must deal with that position. Having dealt with it, however, I think hon. Members will also agree that there must be a provision under which parties can come to an agreement. The object of the last four lines is to enable agreements to be made on difficult questions which may arise in cases where it may be


to the mutual interest of the parties to do so. Many of the difficulties which were discussed yesterday, for example the exact amount of the value, would in normal cases be settled by such agreement without the necessity for the dispute being taken before the Commissioners.
I quite appreciate that, as my hon. Friend has said, there is a possible danger that people may be forced to agree to an adverse bargain because of the difficult position in which they are placed, and might give up advantages which the Bill intends them to have. That is a thing which my right hon. Friend would certainly like to provide against as far as possible, but it would be very difficult to provide against it altogether, and I cannot say whether it will be possible to do so by some provision in this Bill. It would be quite wrong not to give parties power to agree in many cases in which that procedure for the settlement of a dispute would be eminently suitable, but my right hon. Friend will consider whether he can make provision in this Clause which will provide a safeguard as far as possible against what my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Woodburn: In this connection might I make a suggestion to the Attorney-General? I understand that where a similar situation might arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act, namely, one in which a man who is receiving compensation has pressure brought to bear on him to accept a sum in complete settlement, any agreement which may be arrived at must be submitted to a court for registration. That puts a check on any abuse of a privilege which is extended by the Act. In this case, too, if you took power to compel such agreements to be registered with the Commission, a check would be put upon abuse and some sort of control over such agreements would be given to the Commission. The very fact that the power existed would in itself be a deterrent.

Sir K. Wood: I will certainly consider that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 21.—(Properties in separate ownerships.)

Amendments made: In page 17, line 21, leave out "on," and insert "for."

In line 27, leave out "instalments," and insert "instalment."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(A Iterations in area or condition of property.)

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, in page 17, line 37, after "purposes," to insert "which have been in force at any time during the risk period."
There are four Amendments to Clause 22 on the Paper designed to make clear a point on which there seems to have been some doubt. The effect of these Amendments is to make it plain that the assessment on which contributions will be based is not affected by subsequent changes in the assessment after the expiration of the risk period. If instalments were being paid over five years and if the assessment went up in the third year, that would not affect the position of the contribution, which is thrown back on the highest assessment during the risk period. If during the risk period the assessment changes and becomes higher, then of course the contribution is on the highest assessment during the risk period.

Mr. Silkin: What happens if, during the risk period, the assessment is changed in the other direction?

Captain Crookshank: If the assessment goes down during the risk period, then the contribution is payable on the highest assessment. The contribution is based on the biggest degree of risk during that period.

Mr. Benson: It is not retrospective in any way?

Captain Crookshank: No.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 17, line 38, after "purposes," insert "in force at any such time as aforesaid."

In page 18, line 1, after "unit," insert "which has been in force at any time during the risk period."

In line 2, after "purposes," insert "in force at any such time as aforesaid."

In line 14, at the end add—
References in this Sub-section to the site of a property include references to the space


occupied by the property, and references to buildings or works on the site include references to buildings or works occupying the whole of any part of that space."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 24.—(Power to pay contribution in advance.)

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has an Amendment to this Clause on the Paper. Perhaps he will explain it; I think it is unnecessary.

Mr. Benson: I beg to move in page 18, line 40, to leave out from "annum," to the end of the Clause, and to add "such interest shall be subject to assessment to Income Tax."
If the Amendment is unnecessary then I have misunderstood the Clause. As I understand the Clause, it provides that contributions should be paid in advance less Income Tax at standard rate. I understand it is the idea of the Chancellor that he can borrow the contributions, as it were, at 2½ per cent. If anyone then sends a contribution, Income Tax can be deducted from the contribution. This seems an extraordinarily untidy way of doing things. Income Tax at the standard rate is paid only by a very small fraction of property-owners. One does not pay Income Tax at 8s. 6d. until one has £3,500 a year; and as soon as one's income has passed that figure, one pays a great deal more than 8s. 6d. The vast majority of Income Tax payers who pay in advance will have to pay at a much higher rate under this provision than they should do, while the wealthier people will get off more easily than they should. Also, I am advised that this provision will be extremely difficult to administer. There are various fluctuating factors: the rate of contributions is not fixed, and the rate of Income Tax is not fixed. Finally, the amount of trouble which this proposal, if widely availed of, would throw upon the Board of Inland Revenue is colossal. I, therefore, propose that any allowance of 2½ per cent. shall be charged for tax as if it were income in the ordinary way.

Sir K. Wood: There are administrative difficulties about this provision, as my hon. Friend is aware, which we would

be anxious to avoid. As I understand, there is no question of principle between us in this matter. My hon. Friend desires, if possible, to save us from certain administrative complexities; and, of course, a certain amount of cost. We are not satisfied with the form of the Amendment, but I will examine the matter, to see whether it is possible to deal with the point; and I will myself move an Amendment, or communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Benson: Does the Chancellor really think it worth while including this provision in the Clause? I doubt whether many people would take advantage of it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Earl Winterton: Following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), I venture to hope that many of the more wealthy owners will take advantage of this Clause. The Exchequer now is hardly the rich institution that it was in pre-war times, and there may be cases in which some of the smaller property-owners will not be able to pay their contributions in time. I hope that the vast majority of the great property owners will play their part, in order to make the fund as solvent as possible.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.—(Outstanding instalments to be deducted from value payments.)

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 19, to leave out line 5, and to insert:
(which, in so far as it consists of instalments which have not become due at the time when the value payment is made, shall be treated for the purpose of the last preceding section as then becoming due), and no person shall be under any liability to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in respect of so much of the contribution as has not been paid, or, save as provided by Sub-section (2) of this Section, to give any indemnity in respect thereof.
(2) Where the preceding Sub-section has effect in the case of a contributory property to which Section nineteen of this Act applies, and a proprietary interest in the hereditament was subject immediately before the occurrence of the war damage to a mortgage to which that Section applies and which is subsisting when the value payment is discharged, the owner of that interest shall be entitled to the like indemnity from the mortgagee against the reduction of the value payment, or of his share thereof, as the case may be, which results from the operation of the preceding Sub-section as


he would have been entitled to have from the mortgagee if the amount of that reduction had been a net liability of his as a contributor for an instalment and the date of the discharge of the value payment had been the relevant date.
This Amendment is moved in order to fill up gaps which have been noticed while the Bill has been under discussion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 19, line 10, leave out from "hereditament," to end of line 12.

Leave out line 17.

In line 20, leave out from "hereditament," to end of line 23, and insert:
() Where the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are satisfied that a property is unfit by reason of war damage, they shall take no steps to recover the whole or any part of any instalment of contribution falling due in respect thereof (notwithstanding that they may have received notice that a value payment will not be made in respect of a hereditament comprising it) unless and until they are satisfied that it has been rendered fit."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 26.—(Commissioners of Inland Revenue to collect contributions.)

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 19, line 34, after "tax," to insert:
(including enactments relating to the assessment and collection of tax in the case of incapacitated persons, deceased persons and persons not resident in the United Kingdom and in the case of property under the direction and control of a receiver appointed by the court).
This Amendment is to make it clear that the regulations may provide for the collection of instalments of contributions from guardians of persons under an incapacity, or from personal representatives of deceased persons or of persons resident outside the United Kingdom.

Sir Adam Maitland: This does not, of course, involve any personal liability for such representatives, but only a liability to the extent to which they are representatives?

Sir K. Wood: That is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In line 36, at the end, insert:
() Any appeal to the Special Commissioners under this Part of this Act shall be brought and heard in accordance with the provisions of regulations made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under this Section.

In page 20, line 5, leave out from "Commissioners," to the end of the Subsection.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir Frank Sanderson: On a point of Order. Is it not your intention, Colonel Clifton Brown, to call the Amendment which stands in my name, which sets forth a point of very great importance?

The Deputy-Chairman: Certainly not. We discussed that matter on an Amendment yesterday; and, therefore, the hon. Member's Amendment has not been selected.

Major Milner: This very innocent-looking Clause is extremely important. It imports into the operation of this Act all the powers which the Treasury and the Income Tax Commissioners have, in order to obtain payment of contributions from the persons concerned. I was shown yesterday a demand from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for £11,000 or £12,000 which has been made upon perhaps 200 or 300 occupants of flats in one big block. Presumably, the owners of the property had been unable to pay the Income Tax on that property, and the Commissioners were, therefore, demanding the payment of rent to them, instead of to the owners of the property, from each of the 200 or 300 occupants of the flats in these premises. That is one example of the very many powers which we are authorising the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to operate by Subsection (2) of Clause 26. Regulations may be made to apply, with modifications, to any of the enactments relating to the assessment and collection of Income Tax and provide for the assessment and collection of these contributions. It is a very wide power indeed, and I merely call the attention of the Committee to it because it reinforces a good deal of what has been said as to the necessity, wherever possible, of obtaining contributions from mortgagees. All cases where these enactments are brought into operation will be cases in which the owner of the property is, himself, unable to make the contribution. If those contributions could be obtained in whole or in part from mortgagees in appropriate cases, it would be much less likely that


these enactments would have to be brought into force. I do not doubt that they are necessary in the last resort, but I hope that there will not be many occasions on which they will have to be used, as they give the widest possible powers to the Treasury in this matter. This is one of the things which should be kept in mind.

Mr. Silkin: I would like to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Sub-section (3) under which, as my hon. Friend said, very wide powers are given to the Commissioners to go to all sorts of people and get information. The right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment to that Clause which he described as a drafting Amendment. The Committee, which is working at great pressure, let it go, but is it really a drafting Amendment? At the end of Sub-section (3) there is a provision for pains and penalties in case this information is not given, and we know exactly where we are. Under the Income Tax Acts a person suffers the penalties which are laid down if the information is not given. I should think that that is something more than drafting.

Captain Crookshank: It is merely a drafting Amendment in this sense, that line 5 of Sub-section (3) applies as to default and so on to Income Tax penalties, whereas if the hon. Member goes on further he will see that Sub-sections (4) and (5) give what ought to be the penalties. The right hon. Gentleman wished to take it out in reference to Income Tax penalties and to leave mistakes or omissions to be dealt with, or punished, if that is the right word, by the provisions in Sub-sections (4) and (5), which are much less than the Income Tax penalties, which may run up to three times the tax.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps I ought to have said really that it was an Amendment to correct a drafting error.

Earl Winterton: Is it contemplated that these regulations shall be published in the official gazette, or will they be made known to persons affected under the Bill?

Sir K. Wood: They will follow the ordinary procedure adopted by the Commissioners and will be made known in the usual way. I would like to make one observation on the speech of my hon.

and gallant Friend. He was very ingenious in bringing in the point about reinforcing the question about mortgagees. I have noted that. The only observation that I wish to make is that, provided the Commissioners act reasonably, as they have always done, and as I believe they will do, I shall have all the necessary powers. The Committee will realise that, where a contribution has failed to be obtained, the burden is to be shared by all of us. Therefore, one does not want people to escape, and they ought not to escape, and that is why they should be asked in this way.

Mr. Denman: I take it that these regulations have not to be laid before Parliament in the same way as regulations made by the Treasury?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.

Mr. Denman: Is not the power given to the Commissioners really rather wide? They are given the power in such regulations to apply with modifications any of the enactments regarding the assessment of Income Tax. Does not that give them the opportunity of varying the law of assessment in rather an excessive way?

Sir K. Wood: I do not think so. All that will be meant is that they will have the same power.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to press this point, but I hope that in view of that and in the interests of a large proportion of small property owners, some special care will be taken to make known these regulations.

Sir K. Wood: Certainly.

Major Milner: Will the penalties for failing to comply be the same as those under the Income Tax Acts or will they be limited to the £50 set out in Subsection (4)? Prima facie I should think that the penalties under the Income Tax Acts would therefore be extremely severe and might amount to many hundreds of pounds in regard to contributions involving only a very few pounds.

Sir K. Wood: We have made an endeavour to meet that.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 28.—(Property of diplomatic representatives.)

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 20, line 45, to leave out from "be," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
maintained by or against a foreign State, the Sovereign of a foreign State, the envoy of a foreign State accredited to His Majesty, a member of the retinue of such an envoy, the High Commissioner for a Dominion (as defined for the purposes of the Statute of Westminster, 1931), India or Southern Rhodesia or the Agent-General for a state or province forming part of a Dominion (as so defined).
This Clause deals with the property of diplomatic representatives in which, I think, we take an attitude of which the Committee will approve. Owing to the fact that diplomatic representatives are treated in a different way from ordinary citizens we do not exact contributions from them, but we pay the full compensation provided for in the Bill. That is what I am sure we would all desire to be the treatment of diplomatic representatives in this country. This and following Amendments on the Paper in my name are to extend the benefit of the Clause to the following additional types of property—property maintained or belonging to a foreign State or its sovereign, and property belonging to members of the retinue of foreign envoys. It is not only the envoys themselves who are to be covered. We also desire to include High Commissioners of India, Southern Rhodesia, and Agents-General of Dominion provinces, and also properties held on trust for a foreign State or person. This covers cases which were brought to our notice after the Clause was drafted.

Earl Winterton: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not discourage representatives of our fellow-citizens in the Dominions from bearing the cost or dealing with the matter in some way. I am sure that they would wish, as a voluntary act on their part in respect of serious damage to their property, to make some contribution.

Sir K. Wood: Certainly. I will bear that in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 21, line 3, leave out "such a representative," and insert "any such State or person."

In line 3, after "for," insert "its or."

In line 6, after "such," insert "it or."

In line 13, after "whom," insert "it or."

In line 16, leave out "representative," and insert "State or person."

In line 18, leave out "representative," and insert "State or person."

In line 19, after the second "of," insert "its or."

In line 20, after "discharged," insert "its or."

In line 22, leave out "such a representative," and insert "any such State or person."

In line 29, leave out "of the representative as such, "and insert", as such, of the State or person aforesaid."

In line 30, after "that," insert "other."

In line 32, at the end, add:
References in this Part of this Act and the Fifth Schedule thereto to any indemnity to which any person is, or would have been, entitled in respect of an instalment of contribution shall be construed as including a reference to any relief to which he is, or would have been, entitled under this Sub-section.

In line 32, at the end, add:
(4) Where a proprietary interest in the whole or any part of a contributory property is held upon trust for the benefit of any such State or person as aforesaid only, the preceding provisions of this Section shall have effect in relation to that interest and (so far as regards that interest) in relation to the person by whom it is so held as they have effect in relation to a proprietary interest in the ownership of such a State or person and to such a State or person."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 29.—(Property held for charitable purposes.)

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 21, line 34, after "any," to insert:
land which constitutes or forms part of a.
This Clause deals with property held for charitable purposes, and the first Amendment that I move is mainly of a drafting character. I would like to say a word about this Clause because of the common misunderstanding there is about it. I understand that the Clause has been read as carrying a meaning at variance with the Government's intentions in the following respect. It has been read as meaning that in order to fall within Sub-section (4) which makes special provision as to payments made to charity land the


land must fall within Sub-section (1) and be a contributory property. This is contrary to the intention. For example, buildings used for religious purposes are not contributory properties. The other Amendments are of a drafting nature.

Sir Joseph Lamp: Do local authorities come within this meaning?

Sir K. Wood: I will deal with that on my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: Since the Chancellor has explained to us that religious buildings do come under this Clause even if they do not contribute I would like to ask him this question: Does the Chancellor of a church which may easily have a lay rector get two shots? Is the church to have expectations under this Clause and also to maintain its Common Law rights against its own rector? If it is impossible to amend this Bill in that respect, can we have an assurance that it will be put right as soon as possible?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has gone far beyond my knowledge on this matter. I shall have to examine that, although I agree it cannot be dealt with under this Bill. I am sorry that I am not very familiar with what he has said.

Mr. Garro Jones: It is a question of interpretation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Sub-section (5) empowers the Commission to give an interpretation of what is a charitable object and what is a religious object. Although there are many questions which arouse my curiosity on this Clause, I felt that I would be content to leave the question of interpretation to the Commission.

Mr. Pickthorn: The Commission cannot take away Common Law right.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 36, leave out "whole or any part thereof," and insert "land."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I beg to move, in page 21, line 38, after "applies," to insert "or for ecclesiastical purposes."
The Amendment which I now propose is not an attempt to extend the intention

of the Government in this Bill but to make clear that ecclesiastical purposes are included in charitable purposes, as we all believe has been the intention of the Government. The reason for doubt about it is this: In a number of Acts of Parliament, including the Settled Lands Act, there was a differentiation between charitable objects and ecclesiastical objects and it might, therefore, be held in the absence of these words that ecclesiastical purposes were not included.

Mr. Garro Jones: If it is not too presumptuous I want to ask a question by way of caution. Does this proposal exempt property, owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which is not religious property?

Sir Patrick Hannon: I would like to support the Amendment moved by my right hon. and gallant Friend. For many weeks past the Chancellor has given very careful consideration to the issues raised in this particular Clause and I believe he has received representations from various ecclesiastical authorities and Churches, who are profoundly concerned with the implications of this Clause if it should stay in the Bill and become part of the Act. Some of my hon. Friends and I are particularly anxious about certain interests in the Catholic Church which are affected by this Clause. There are certain orders of the Catholic Church which do not teach or do any of the various practical works associated with many religious organisations and I would be particularly glad if the Chancellor would give an assurance that the interests of those communities will be protected. It may, perhaps, save time if my right hon. Friend makes some general statement which will cover many of the issues raised in the subsequent Amendments to the Clause. We are, naturally, anxious to protect the charitable purposes for which the various religious organisations stand and do not wish to avoid any responsibility which, in ordinary circumstances, every religious body should take in the interests of the nation. Finally, I would like to say how much those of us who have been associated with conferences on this very delicate subject do appreciate the courtesy and consideration extended to us by the Chancellor and the Treasury in relation to this particular Clause.

Mr. Messer: I do not know whether I have properly understood the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down but he appears to want included not merely part of the premises which may be used for religious purposes, but premises which may be used for other than religious purposes.

Sir P. Hannon: No.

Mr. Messer: Well, that was the impression I got and I was about to point out the danger of such a course.

Mr. Denman: In reply to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) I think I can give him the assurance for which he asks. These words do not bring within the Clause properties that are merely held for purposes of producing revenue.

Mr. Garro Jones: I hope the Chancellor will make sure before he accepts this Amendment, that it is tightly enough drawn to exclude revenue-producing property.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not the matter quite clear already? Is the case not protected under Sub-section (2, c).

Sir K. Wood: I think so. I propose to accept this Amendment, but I will examine the matter in the light of what the hon. Member has said. I think it might be convenient if I made a general statement now, because I promised the religious communities that I would say something in the Committee on the lines of the assurances I gave to them. This matter is of great importance to the religious communities and the religious life of the country. In looking at the matter from the point of view of property held for charitable purposes, we had to give consideration to very many questions and to decide whether we would ask charities and churches to make the ordinary contributions under the Bill and follow the usual procedure with regard to claims. We felt, in the first place, that apart from another consideration which I will mention later, we should be following the desires of the Committee and of the country if we did not endeavour to exact contributions from churches and charitable bodies. The cost of this will not fall upon property owners under the provisions of the Bill, but will be borne by the State. We felt that, amid all the

evil which has been done, we should at any rate seek to restore, as far as we could, and in suitable cases and in proper places, the churches that have been destroyed in considerable numbers throughout the country. That was our main object. We would not allow the enemy, if he could—not that I think he could— to defeat the religious purposes of these communities throughout the country. Another practical reason for our action is that in many such cases it is impossible to apply the exact terms of the provisions of the Bill with regard to value. That was a subsidiary, but none the less substantial, reason for our taking the course we have taken.

Sir J. Lamb: Does my right hon. Friend include schools as well?

Sir K. Wood: I will refer to them a little later. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) headed a deputation to me from his own community, and I have seen representatives of all the Christian bodies in the country. Moreover, they have all met together under the chairmanship of the Bishop of London. They have a common interest in this matter, and they have considered it together. They have assured me that the main principles of this Bill, and particularly the Clauses which affect them, are warmly welcomed by them, and they have said that they appreciate the good will which the Government have shown in this Measure, and which I am sure will be endorsed by the Committee. The only matter they have raised with me—an important and substantial matter as far as their interests are concerned—is the question whether the fact that they make no contributions under the Bill will mean that compensation payable under the Bill to charitable and ecclesiastical bodies will be reduced or postponed on that account. I have given the Government's assurance that that is not the intention and that that will not be the case. There are, of course, a number of cases where the physical character of the property renders unsuitable the normal basis laid down in the Bill for the assessment of compensation, and, having regard to the purposes of the bodies in question, a measure of flexibility as to the manner and the amount paid to them should be available in their own interest. Obviously, it is desirable to make some provision of that sort; but I


want to assure the Committee and those who are concerned that there is no question, for instance, of giving first consideration to claims made in respect of contributory properties and postponing the claims in respect of those who do not contribute. There is no intention of that sort.

Sir P. Hannon: Will my right hon. Friend embody that in the Treasury Regulations to be issued for the War Damage Commission?

Sir K. Wood: It may not be a matter for regulation, but I will certainly see that there is such a direction. What we should have to have regard to would be the national interest. It might very well be that in certain cases homes would have to be restored first, but there is no question of a differentiation between the people who make contributions and those who do not. We desire to give equal consideration to all cases in the national interest, and that, of course, will be governed by the general conditions of the Bill. It is true that, inasmuch as contributions are not being paid and inasmuch as there is considerable difficulty with regard to values and valuations, the amount of payment is left free for settlement by the Commission.
If one wanted to criticise this Clause—as I think, improperly—one could say, "Everyone is left at the mercy of the Commission." I think that is inevitable when contributions are not being made, and when one has regard to the character of the buildings for which compensation has to be paid. But I would emphasise, and give the assurance, that it is the intention—and I am sure it will be carried out by the Commission, for otherwise we would not get a reasonable administration of the Bill—in all these cases, and particularly in regard to churches, that there should be full consultation with the respective committees or representatives of those whose property may be affected in this way. Obviously, the Commission, in dealing with a question of compensation for the loss of churches, will have to get into very close consultation with the representative of the bodies affected. For instance, in the case of one of our City churches which has unhappily gone, and which meant so much to us from an historical point of view, it might very well be that, seeing that unhappily the historic

side can never be restored, the advice which the Commission will receive from the responsible authorities will be that they do not want the church rebuilt in that particular place, and that the compensation available can be better utilised elsewhere, in places where there is a larger population. Good might, in fact, come out of evil, for such a church might very well be restored in the middle of a community where it would do much more good from the practical and Christian point of view than it would in the City of London, attended at it might be by very few people on weekdays and Sundays. All these considerations will have to be borne in mind and the Commission will have to be guided and advised by the responsible authorities. My hon. Friends who are interested in this matter, and in the churches themselves, can rely upon the very closest consultation. Our object, and the object of this Clause and, I am sure, of the Commission when it is appointed, is to use the compensation to the very best possible advantage and in accordance with their desires and wishes. Obviously the Commission will have to look to them as to the particular arrangements and the way with which the matter is to be dealt.
I have also been asked whether this Clause will include manses, dwellings of clergymen of the Church of England and other denominations. The answer is that so long as they are held on trust and are not, of course, the property of individual ministers, then they will be covered by this Clause. In other words, so long as they are used in connection with religious purposes and not as individual property of an individual, it is our intention to cover them by this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley, on behalf of the Catholics, wanted to know whether the property of the Catholic Order is covered. I think he may take it, so far as the wording already contained in the Bill is concerned, that we believe that that is so; but I will examine that point again—of course, it is a matter of importance to the Catholic Church. There is another Amendment on the Order Paper which we can also dispose of. It is an Amendment to page 21, line 40, after "only," to insert:
and that whether or not such use involves the carrying on of a trade, or where the whole or that part thereof, as the case may be, is unoccupied.


As regards the first part of that Amendment, we have the true doctrine of this Clause laid down by the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), in page 21, to leave out lines 39 to 43—that is to say, the benefits of this Clause can only be given in respect of land used in connection with charitable purposes covered by the Clause. I am afraid my hon. Friend's Amendment is too wide, since it may cover the case of a factory run on commercial lines the profits of which were used to provide revenue for the charity. I do not think that is my hon. Friend's intention, but that may be the meaning of his Amendment, and it would be contrary to the whole purpose of the Clause. On the other hand, a workshop which incidentally produced certain profits, but the main purpose of which was to provide technical training in connection with an educational charity, would be covered by the other Amendment to which I have referred. As regards the second part, charitable property which is temporarily directed to other purposes by reason of the war is covered by the Amendment which I shall move in page 22, line 3. I think that will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley has another Amendment providing that
where the main purpose for which land is used is a charitable purpose to which this Section applies the use of that land for any purpose which, although not such a charitable purpose, is ancillary to the said main purpose shall not deprive the owner of the proprietary interest in the land of the benefit of this Section.
This again is too wide. It would seem to cover, for instance, the case of a home farm which exists mainly to supply farm products to a charitable institution and there is no reason why they should not be treated like other agricultural properties. But there are other agricultural properties which again will be covered by the Amendment in page 21, to leave out lines 39 to 43—such as properties used in connection with charitable purposes, holdings and other places for training children in agriculture. He may be content with the assurance I have given him in that connection.
Then there is the Amendment, in page 22, line 10, which seeks to include the words, "for holidays and for con-

valescence." The word "holiday" is far too wide. In so far as the charity exists for providing holidays for the poor, it will already be covered by Sub-section (2, a), and it is unnecessary to provide further than that. In so far as they exist for private holidays for other classes of the community, that would not appear to be a case which I could reasonably accept within the ambit of this Clause. The Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), which I propose to accept, would cover the point my hon. Friend has raised.
There is another Amendment, the object of which is not clear: In page 22, line 11, after "religion," to insert:
or the practice of observance thereof.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley will speak to me about that. We have used the term "advancement of religion" which, I am informed, has been consistently used since the time of Queen Elizabeth, and there seems to be no reason for departing from that traditional form. However, perhaps he will have a word with me on that point. Another Amendment to which I wish to refer is that to page 22, line 18, after "hereditament," to insert:
not being a hereditament used for the purposes of the advancement of education, science or research.
The effect of this Amendment would be to give educational charities the right to the compensation payable under the earlier Clauses of the Bill while retaining their contributions at one-third. I cannot go as far as that. I think my hon. Friend must be content with the provision I have made, although I would add that I have had no representations on the subject. The only other Amendment to which I need refer is, in page 22, line 12, at the end, to insert:
other purposes beneficial to the public:
Provided that where an educational establishment is not conducted for profit, or where the profits, if any, are held and used for any of the charitable purposes to which this Suction applies, the fact that fees are charged or that a profit is made shall not exclude the owner of the proprietary interest in the land from the benefit of this section.
I shall be glad to have any representations made to me so far as those educational establishments are concerned which are not conducted for a profit, and see whether in fact they are covered by the Bill. As regards the second part of it, I am advised that the proviso is unnecessary.


It has long been held that an educational charity does not cease to be a charity merely because fees are charged. That, therefore, is unnecessary. Subject to any observations that any hon. Members desire to make, I suggest that, after my explanation, they should leave the matter in this way, that I will examine the Amendments again, some of which have only just appeared for the first time, mid see whether on the whole, having regard to the main objects which I have pointed out, any further amendments are necessary or not to carry out anything that ought to have been done and may have been omitted.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion on the Amendment, and I will call individual Amendments afterwards.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation on a matter in which some of us ate very interested in the North of England, the aged miners' homes movement.

Sir K. Wood: Aged miners' homes are covered by the Clause in so far as they are for the benefit of persons who are either not well off or suffer from any disability. If there are homes which are not in this category, there is no reason for giving them the benefit of the Clause, which relates to charity. In so far as they come within the definition to which I have referred, they will be covered by the Bill.

Mr. Taylor: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give a little more consideration to this aspect of it. While it is true that in our movement we may have some men who have been injured or who are suffering from poverty, yet it would be very difficult indeed to separate and distinguish one as against the other. I do not think it would need much elaboration to show that this is a charity in the pure sense of the word. Persons can only enter the homes after they have reached a certain age, the age of retirement. The funds are entirely made up of subscriptions from working miners and generous friends who are kindly disposed towards the relief of miners in their declining years. The governors do not receive a penny in rent. Some of the inmates may be suffering as a result of injury during working life and others,

maybe, on account of circumstances over which they have had no control, such as low wages or ill-health. At the same time there are others who are probably not poor, but under the rules of the organisation are entitled to retire into the home on reaching a certain age. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this again and bring all three classes into the same category.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not wish to be controversial, but there were one or two things in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which I do not think ought to be passed without some question. He said there was no risk that charities, because they were not contributory, would find their claims reduced or postponed. I hope his use of the word "claims" was inadvertent, because the essence of the Clause, from the point of view of educational charities, is that they have no claims at all, since the compensation can be paid, not only in what amount the Commission decides, but also to what receiver the Commission may choose, and there is no specific person who has any right to claim. There is a distinction there between religious and educational bodies. He pointed out that in general there would be no contribution, but he did not point out that under the educational part of the Clause there would be one-third contributions. That makes a distinction between the two. I am not quite sure that I would not have wished to be allowed to pay the whole contribution, but it is a distinction on which we ought to have a word from the Treasury Bench.
Closely connected with that there is another distinction between educational and ecclesiastical charities. The War Damage Commission is not compelled to consult the individual owner of a church. Where churches are too thick on the ground and some are blown up, there is something to be said for building a new church somewhere else. It does not apply in the same respect to educational charities where it is often their contiguity to each other which gives them their value. There is another distinction. I do not suppose anybody would suggest that there is a possible risk that if an Anglican church in the City were blown up the Commission would pay compensation to a Roman Catholic church in South Lancashire. As the Bill stands


however—I do not suggest it is the intention—if an educational establishment in one place is blown up the compensation might be given to some different sort of educational establishment in some other place.
There is no right of appeal in these cases in the way that the ordinary contributors have, but could it not be made clear that in cases where there is a one-third contribution the person, incorporated or otherwise, making the contribution must be consulted. The person making the contribution cannot be a claimant, but I do not want there to be any risk, if, for instance, a college were blown up, that the university, or even the whole body of universities, is to be consulted. Where there is a continuing body which has owned property for generations or centuries and which is making contributions, and where that continuing living body suffers damage to its buildings, it seems not unreasonable that, although it cannot have a right to be a claimant, it should have a right to be consulted. If I am told that that will be done under the words of the Bill I am willing to accept that interpretation, but it does not seem clear on the face of it. My right hon. Friend said something which, if it is right, is disquieting. As far as I could follow him, he said he could not go so far as to say that an educational charity might be allowed to pay the full contribution and thereupon have an expectation of full compensation. If that is what he meant it seems to be in contradiction of what he said earlier, that he wished it to be clearly understood that the bodies coming under this Clause would not run any risk of financial loss from coming under the Clause. I understand that my Amendment—in page 21, leave out lines 39 to 43, and insert.—
(b) that the land, as distinct from rents and profits thereof, is used in any manner (including use in a manner involving the beneficial occupation of the land by any person) for or in connection with the carrying out of the purposes for which that interest is held, and not otherwise"—
is to be accepted. I will not, therefore, detain the Committee by explaining it. I have another Amendment in page 22, line 4, at the end, insert,—
(2) If and so long as land normally used, as mentioned in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section is temporarily diverted from

such use by reason of circumstances arising from war, the land shall be deemed for the purpose of this Section to be used as it is normally used.
I understand that the official Amendment—in page 22, line 43, at the end, insert,—
(5) If and so long as land normally used as mentioned in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section is temporarily diverted from such use by reason of circumstances arising from war, the land shall be deemed for the purposes of this Section to be used as it is normally used"—
is to the same effect and is to be accepted. I will not, therefore, trouble the Committee with mine. I should like your guidance, Colonel Clifton Brown, whether I should say a word now on my two later Amendments to this Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be better if the hon. Member deferred his remarks until I called the Amendments.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I would like to support what the hon. Member has said in regard to the position of educational charities which will make a contribution of one-third. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give an assurance that he will consider making some modification to make it sure that the charity which contributes shall be consulted. That is not asking very much. It still leaves the immense power of decision in the hands of the Commission. The least that these bodies ought to expect the Act to provide is that they should have the fullest opportunity of putting their case to the Commission. In so far as they make a substantial contribution they are in a different position from other charities.

Mr. Charles Williams: I would like to refer to a set of important organisations connected with the agricultural interest which is not covered by the Bill. I refer to the village institutes or clubs. They are public institutions and are frequently the only means of any indoor social life in the villages. They are not likely to make big calls on the Exchequer in this matter. Nearly all of them are purely charitable institutions and many are facing difficulties owing to the men being called up. I do not think they are covered by paragraph (d), although they take some part in education in that they are available for lectures and are useful for the general purposes of the community. There is a tremendous drive to


get people back into agriculture and these institutions form one of the means of keeping people in the country. I would ask the Government to see that these organisations are brought under the Bill as they, in fact, nearly are, because they are of vital importance to the agricultural community.

Mr. Woodburn: I wish to put another aspect of this question with regard to bodies for the advancement of religion. I take it that Sub-section (4, a) gives the Commission or the Government a certain amount of control on what replaces the building in the public interest and the interests of town planning and general amenities. I have in mind the case of a church where the Corporation of Edinburgh gave land at the junction of Princes Street and Lothian Road on which to build a church. When it became a bottle-neck for traffic and a danger to pedestrians and the town wanted back a slight strip of land from the church, the church claimed some thousands of pounds an acre for it. No one would think of destroying a church that was in such a position, but if by chance a church which is a block in the traffic were removed by a bomb, the Government would have the power to say in the interests of town planning that the church should not be replaced in the middle of the traffic. While everyone sympathises with the statement of the Chancellor as to the generous treatment that will be offered to the bodies fulfilling this function, I would like an assurance that consideration will be given to the public interest and town planning and that religious bodies will be generous in their negotiations with the Commission where it is a question of rebuilding in a place where it would be a danger to the public.

Sir J. Lamb: My hon. Friends and I have several Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with schools. Naturally we wish to curtail discussion on the Bill as much as possible, and we should not move them if we could feel satisfied that the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer covered the objects we have in view. In referring to voluntary schools the Chancellor of the Exchequer used the words "no contribution," but the Bill speaks of a contribution of one-third for educational purposes. I should like to

know whether a voluntary school will be in the position of making no contribution but will be able to receive full payment for damage done.

Captain Crookshank: I can answer that point at once. The present position under the law is that non-provided public elementary schools are statutorily exempt from rates. Therefore they cannot make a contribution on a rate assessment, and therefore they will not be making a contribution.

Mr. Denman: Is that true of Schedule A? They do not pay under Schedule A, but could they not be assessed under Schedule A?

Captain Crookshank: As I understand the present position—it is a legal point, and I may be wrong—non-provided public elementary schools are statutorily exempt from rates under Section 167 of the Act of 1921, and therefore there will be neither a Schedule A nor a rating valuation in respect of the buildings, and so, under Clause 14, they cannot be contributory properties, because Clause 14 says that contributory properties are those which fall either in the first or the second of those two categories.

Sir J. Lamb: I am much obliged for that explanation, which will meet my first point. I understand they will not be liable to pay a contribution but that payments can be received by them. I should like to be sure that the Chancellor's statement covers my further Amendment dealing with schools which are the property of a local authority. Here I am speaking for the County Councils' Association. We all know the liability which rests upon a local authority to replace schools which have been demolished if the denominational body does not see fit or is not in a position to replace them, but as the denominational body will be fully insured—if I may introduce the word "insurance"—I think the liability to replace the schools is removed from the local authority, and that will obviate the necessity of moving my Amendment. If I am given an assurance that full compensation for damage done to voluntary schools removes the liability upon local authorities to provide another school I shall feel that both my points have been covered.

Mr. Silkin: There are three small points which I wish to mention, because if I get


satisfactory explanations it may obviate my moving Amendments. First, what is the position of public schools like Eton and Harrow? My second point deals with housing associations, that is, charitable organisations which exist to build houses for the working classes. It is not at all clear whether they come under Clause 29. I have put down an Amendment referring to those who make provision for housing the working classes. That Amendment is far wider than the case I am putting forward, because it would cover anyone who is providing houses for the working classes, whether a charitable organisation or not. I do not propose to move that Amendment, because it is wider than the point I am now putting, but I should like to have an assurance that the Chancellor's statement does cover the case of housing associations which are genuinely providing houses for the working classes at low rents and without profit to themselves.
There is another Amendment which I am moving at the request of the London County Council. Apparently they do not want to enjoy the blessings of this Clause. Apparently they fear the Greeks and the gifts they bring. They want to be allowed to pay full contributions even though, strictly speaking, they may come within the terms of this Clause, in respect of places for the treatment of sickness, disease or injury, the advancement of education, elementary schools, etc. They want to be assured that as a local authority they are not regarded as a charity, and they will pay the ordinary contribution with a view to getting the ordinary benefits.

Mr. Harvey: I must apologise for speaking a second time, but as it is expected that the Government will reply to all the points raised in the various Amendments it may be well for me to put a very important point which was only touched upon by the Chancellor in his general statement. I understood that he was unwilling to consider giving an option to educational bodies to take their place with all other property owners, paying the same contributions and receiving the same benefits. It seems to me that it is most desirable that he should reconsider that attitude, from the national point of view and the point of view of the educational institutions concerned.

It is surely to the advantage of the insurance fund that it should be as large as possible, and if it were increased by a substantial contribution from a number of educational institutions availing themselves of this option that would be to the general good. Among education authorities there is real anxiety in a number of cases, lest the conditions which may be imposed upon them by the Commissioners may seriously interfere with the objects they have in view, and in any case some of them would much prefer to pay the larger sum and have the right to the same compensation as other property owners. The Chancellor has been so friendly in his attitude and has shown himself so desirous of doing justice to all the bodies concerned that we can have no doubt about his personal intentions, but he pointed out that the wording of the Clause gives absolute authority to the Commission, and we have to consider not merely his speech but the wording of the Clause. We cannot wonder that education authorities should feel some anxiety when they know that they are going to pay a one-third contribution and in return have no absolute right to anything, though the Commissioners may, if they think fit, give a payment
of such amount, to such person and subject to such conditions, as they may in their discretion determine after consultation with such persons or bodies as appear to them to he appropriate.
It surely is not right that an education authority should be compelled by Act of Parliament to make what would be in many cases a substantial contribution, and have, in return, no right whatever, even to consultation. I would therefore plead that the Government should consider giving the option to all such authorities of making full payments and receiving the same rights under the Bill as other property owners.

Mr. Denman: Having taken some interest in Clause 29 from a very early stage, I wish to make two points in connection with it. Clearly, the Churches are putting themselves entirely, for practical purposes, in the hands of future Governments and of the Commission, as it may hereafter be constituted. The Churches are acting wisely in this matter, because it is, perhaps, especially the duty of the Churches to be rich in faith, and in this case they clearly must have a reasonable faith in the good sense


of future Administrations. The second point is like that which was admirably made by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) as to the relation between public interest and the replacement of Churches, and so on, in future. I am sure, from discussions which I have had in connection with the Clause, that it would be the view of the Churches that the business of the Commission would have regard to the kind of public interest to which my hon. Friend has referred. The Churches would themselves think that that was the duty of the Commission, and I am sure they would all collaborate most anxiously to satisfy the obvious public needs in that respect.

Sir Robert Tasker: I wish to ask a question with regard to schools. What is the basis of computation for determining what the schools shall receive? How are one-third, one-half or three-quarters to be arrived at? Again, with regard to charitable institutions, there does not seem any method of calculating the amount of reimbursement. The Clause is too comprehensive, and there should be some sort of definition. It extends to all kinds of charities and even to a charity in which I am interested for the benefit of ex-Service men. I do not know where the Chancellor will begin and where he will end, and I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would explain.

Captain Crookshank: This form of Debate is very convenient for hon. Members, to speak upon their own Amendments, but it is difficult for me to try and pick up exactly what everybody is talking about. I do not pretend to be able to answer every question put to me, but there are certain aspects of the general question which I may be able to review. We have had suggestions as to whether or not various charities should be brought within the Clause, such as homes for aged miners, village institutes and the British Legion. In one form or another hon. Members think of those institutions coming within the definition of charities, but we have to look at what the Bill says. The Bill describes what charitable purposes are, and they are set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-section (2) of the Clause.
I do not think that, by any stretch of imagination, the British Legion, as such, could come under the Clause, and I do not suppose it really wants to. The same is true of village institutes, as such. They could not possibly come under the present definition. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was right in saying that they perform a very useful service in the life of the community. He said there was some educational work, as they were open for one or two lectures a week. That is not what most of us think of when we talk of educational establishments. The only answer is that there is not room in the statutory definition for the village institutes, as such, and they would fall within or without the Clause according to the circumstances of each particular case. If a village institute were solely concerned with advancing education, it would come into the definition, but if it were used also for entertainments, ping-pong and other things, it would not.
On the question of miners' welfare cottages and aged miners' homes, I would again point out, if my recollection of former years' intensive application to the problems of the mining industry is right, that there is not just one form of aged miners' home. This is a general term. Most of the homes are probably run under some trust arrangement, or in conjunction with some organisation or trade union. One home might come within the definition or might not. One group might be largely devoted to relieving the poverty of aged miners, and another group, I could imagine, would be devoted more to the treatment of physical sickness. There might be a home in which single miners lived. We have to look at the circumstances of each case. However, the point having been raised, I will look into it further.
Another hon. Gentleman asked about the position of public schools. I think he really asked the question in a humorous way. I think he realises that such schools would be paying at the reduced rate. Whatever else you can say about the advancement of education, this is the object of the public schools, although they might fail in that object. This is another matter, but that is their purpose.

Mr. Woodburn: The failure is obvious in some cases.

Captain Crookshank: I am afraid that in some cases it is patently obvious, and I will leave it at that. At any rate, the advancement of education is the purpose for which the public schools exist, and that is within the definition of a charitable purpose. There may be some educational establishments which do not come within that definition. There may be schools of the type run as a business by an individual for purely financial purposes, and with the advancement of education as the means by which he hopes to get a good financial result. In that case, one would have to look into the circumstances and see whether the school did or did not fall within the definition.
Some hon. Members have put the point of view of local education authorities. The non-provided schools are not subject to one or other of the forms of ratings referred to in the Bill and which would make them contributory properties. Therefore, the position is that they are not contributory properties. I thought that had already been made clear, but that does not prevent them from being the recipients of compensation. The whole question of compensation runs through the Bill. There are two plans, the cost-of-works plan and the value plan.

Sir J. Lamb: Might I interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because I want to make this clear. If they do not receive the full value, can you still leave upon the local education authority the onus of providing the full value?

Captain Crookshank: I think it would be much simpler if we dealt with these points seriatim. The non-provided school does not contribute. After consultation with everybody concerned as to what the War Damage Commission ought to do if the managers of the non-provided schools cannot rebuild, it may fall upon the local authority to rebuild, but that is surely one of the considerations which the War Damage Commission would have to bear in mind when consulting the persons and bodies which seemed appropriate, having regard to the nature of the purposes for which that interest was held. I think my hon. Friend's point is covered, but if he is not satisfied he can talk to me again, and I can consider it further.
The hon. Gentlemen who spoke on behalf of Cambridge University (Mr.

Pickthorn) and the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) have referred to the point that while an educational establishment may have to pay a contribution, yet it is not mandatory in the Bill that, before deciding whether to pay cost-of-works or value payments, the War Damage Commission should consult them, although they are contributors. I think that is the point they made. I cannot imagine a War Damage Commission, with the authority that it will have and with its important responsibilities, and having been told in the Bill that they must consult such people as they think appropriate, not thinking that the first appropriate person to consult was the person who made the contribution. It seems to me to be thinking of the War Damage Commission as a collection of nitwits. However, if the point that such a safeguard is necessary is really pressed, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will look into it and see whether it is worth putting it into the Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn: It is not so obvious as my right hon. and gallant Friend seems to think.

Captain Crookshank: I think I dealt with the question about the local education authorities, which was raised by the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker). He also pointed out that some of these establishments were paying a lower rate and others were not paving a contribution at all, and he asked how the War Damage Commission would assess the basis of the compensation. I am afraid that he has not been as careful a student of the Bill as some of us have had to be. The contribution is no basis at all for the compensation. The compensation which is going to be paid is in the form of either a cost-of-works payment or a value payment based upon entirely different considerations. The contribution paid by anyone has no relation at all to the compensation to be paid.
The last question—and I think I have answered everything that has been asked—was by the hon. Member opposite, who asked whether, in deciding whether or not to rebuild a church, the Commission would in their discretion take into account various town planning considerations. I think that was the gist of his question. I would answer the question in this way.


Under this Clause it is true that the War Damage Commission is given the discretion, after consulting with the parties concerned, of deciding how much compensation is to be given. But then, of course, earlier on we envisaged the fact that the Commission would have some general directions over the whole field with regard to town planning, and it would, therefore, be for the Commission in their discretion to decide at any given point which one of the two would be the overriding consideration. They might say, "This building for certain reasons has got to be put here, and your town-planning arrangements must conform with that fact," or they might say, "The town planning in this area is such that you cannot put that building there," and in that case town-planning considerations would have to have paramount effect. In each case they would have those two problems to weigh up, and, within the best of human possibilities, would do the right thing.

Mr. Harvey: My right hon. and gallant Friend has not dealt with the point which I raised when speaking a second time about the need for an option.

Captain Crookshank: I thought that my right hon. Friend had already said that we could not really consider the possibility of one or other of these various charities, as defined in this Clause, having the option to come in or not.

Mr. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman referred to churches, but not to schools.

Captain Crookshank: I think it would apply in all cases, because ex hypothesi if one looks at the list—religion, education, science or research—that envisages all sorts of bodies which are not in a very flourishing condition. They would not be able to come in, and as far as schools are concerned, I do not think there are very many schools which would ask to come in.

Mr. Woodburn: If they send contributions, will you accept them?

Captain Crookshank: As a voluntary offering I do not think there would be any bother about that. My right hon. Friend did say that he would consider the point carefully.

Mr. C. Williams: I raised the question of village institutes. They are a particu-

larly hard-hit body. In the countryside they perform a very important function, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman between now and the Report stage to look at the question from a wider point of view. They are practically "broke," and if you put a heavy contribution upon them, many of them are bound to close, in which case the country would lose a very valuable institution. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would discuss the point with me. I should like to thank the Financial Secretary for his kind and courteous answer, which I very much value, and I hope that he will also mellow his views.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21 leave out lines 39 to 43, and insert:
(b) that the land, as distinct from rents and profits thereof, is used in any manner (including use in a manner involving the beneficial occupation of the land by any person) for or in connection with the carrying out of the purposes for which that interest is held, and not otherwise."—[Mr. Pickthorn.]

The Chairman: In regard to most of the remaining Amendments on this Clause, I think there has already been full discussion, and I propose to call them only if hon. Members wish them to be called.

Mr. Pickthorn: With respect, Sir Dennis, I was told that I might say a few words on my other Amendments and that it would be better if they were not mentioned while we were discussing the general policy.

The Chairman: I think that was the reason why I said I would only call them if hon. Members wished them to be called.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 22, line 3, after "research," to insert:
only, or, if they include such purposes and the use of the land is solely or mainly for or in connection with the carrying out of such purposes.
This Amendment is required because the Clause, as drafted, is not quite clear as to whether properties used both for education and some other unspecified charitable purpose would be exempted. The result of the Amendment would be that the charge of one-third of the full rate would be imposed only where the use was solely or mainly for or in connection with educational purposes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Woodburn: , I beg to move, in page 22, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(2) Nursery schools, wholly or mainly supported by charity and approved by local authorities, shall have their liability under this Clause reduced to nil.
Like the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I wish to explain this Amendment. Many local authorities have not yet been able to establish nursery schools and have accordingly given permission to voluntary bodies to experiment in certain districts in the establishment of nursery schools. These have been of enormous value from a social and from a health point of view, and are in every way to be encouraged. I am placed in a certain difficulty by what the Financial Secretary has said, for I cannot say whether these schools are exempted from rates or not. To take one example, there is a nursery school in one of the worst parts of Edinburgh in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), which, although it was at first impossible to get children to go to it in any numbers, has reached the point where there is a waiting list of 80 names, and mothers are registering their children for the nursery school as soon as they are born, just as I understand horses are registered for the Derby when they are born. The fact that that is done shows the tragic need for this nursery-school movement, and anything which is going to discourage them will have a serious reflection on a very important experimental feature of the educational system. Until local authorities are able to establish their own nursery schools in sufficient numbers, I would respectfully ask the Chancellor to accept this Amendment, and agree that such nursery schools as are defined here should be exempted.

Sir J. Lamb: Is there any reason why exemption should be limited to nursery schools approved by the local authority?

Sir K. Wood: The answer to that is the answer which I am going to make to this Amendment. Unless my hon. Friend can bring further evidence to support his proposal, I cannot accept his Amendment at the present time, because it is very difficult to see why I should pick out nursery schools for more favourable treatment than other educational charities. If I were to do so, I know what would happen: I should receive many applications in regard to similar institutions. Therefore, unless

my hon. Friend can put forward some particular reason, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: To avoid misunderstanding may I point out that the schools I have in mind are wholly or almost wholly maintained by charity, although the local authority makes a grant to them? There is no question of any fee; they are charitable schools maintained for the benefit of people in the very poorest areas.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: The next Amendment on the Paper appears to deal with the question of exemption on the grounds of charitable purposes upon which there has already been so much discussion. I do not think I can allow any further appreciable discussion on it.

Mr. Clement Davies: I beg to move, in page 22, line 6, to leave out from "purposes," to the end of line 12, and to insert:
in respect of which exemption from Income Tax would be granted under the Income Tax Acts, 1918 to 1940.
This rather widens the scope of the exemption provisions. The only definition of "charitable purpose" that we have is contained in the Income Tax Acts. There have been quite a number of decisions based upon that definition, and I thought that here was an opportunity for the Chancellor to explain why he has narrowed down the definition contained in those Acts. May I point out one or two things in regard to it? I have put this Amendment down chiefly at the instigation of the National Institute for the Blind. Where do they come in under this definition? Not under relief of poverty; they might come in under the relief and the treatment of sickness, disease or injury, physical or mental, particularly in so far as treatment is concerned. Then there is the other provision, namely, the advancement of education, science or research. They do a very great deal of work in helping and educating blind people, but beyond that they do something else; they help to establish them in business and look after them for a considerable time, and it seems to me that the definition now included in the Bill is much too narrow. What applies to the National Institute for the Blind also applies to the deaf and infirm. I have put down this Amendment for the purpose of


getting some statement from the Chancellor. I do not press him at this moment, but will he consider it between now and the Report stage, when we may have to discuss the matter more fully?

The Attorney-General: I think this Amendment goes much too far. My hon. and learned Friend is not quite right in saying that the definition contained in the Income Tax Acts is the only definition, but the Income Tax Acts do, of course, give special exemptions for bodies which are held to be charitable. Some trusts have been held to be charitable which might surprise one. Thus, a society for the propagation of Socialism was once held to be a good charitable trust, although it has not yet been held that a society for the promotion of Conservatism is also a charity. The building of bridges and all sorts of things have been brought in as valid charities, which clearly would have no right to be included in the exemptions under this Bill. As far as the blind are concerned, or any special institution which either now or later people feel would normally be intended to be covered but which has not been covered by this Bill, we shall be glad to consider them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. C. Williams: I beg to move, in page 22, line 9, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert:
(b) the making of provision for the cure or mitigation or prevention of, or for the care of persons suffering from or subject to, any disease or infirmity or disability affecting human beings (including the care of women before, during, and after childbirth);
I think that the Chancellor intends to accept this Amendment. The real object of the Amendment is to be quite sure that the provisions covered in the last words of the Amendment come into the Bill, and are made quite clear. It is almost invariably the case that when anything has to be done for women the male Members of this House have to move the necessary Amendments. It is only right that we should do this for our absent sisters.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 22, line 12, after "education," to insert "learning."
Many of us prefer the word "learning" to "research," or even to "education"; and would he sorry to see the word "learning" omitted. I do not pre-

tend that this is a matter of very great importance, and I will not waste any time if the Chancellor says that it is impossible for him to consider it. If "learning" is inserted here there are two or three other places where it would have to be inserted; but I did not bother to put an Amendment down for each case.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend will leave the matter open, for me to consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 22, line 12, at the end, to insert:
Provided that any hereditament owned or occupied by a local authority for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this Sub-section shall be deemed not to be held for charitable purposes for the purposes of this Section.
The object of the Amendment is to make it quite clear that local authorities concerned with the various matters referred to in the Clause are not to be treated as charities, but are to be permitted to pay the full contributions, and to get the full benefits. This Amendment is brought forward at the instance of the London County Council. I recognise that there are other local authorities which take a different view. I move this merely to get the view of the Chancellor. At any rate, it ought to be made quite clear what the position is.

Sir K. Wood: I shall have to consult the County Councils' Association on this matter. This is the only representation I have had, and I had better ask the Association what they think about it, as there is a difference of opinion between the L.C.C. and other bodies.

Sir J. Lamb: I know of no difference of opinion, and, on behalf of the County Councils' Association, I should like to support this Amendment. I have put down an Amendment at the request of the Association which I think covers exactly the same point.

Sir K. Wood: If they are in agreement, there is no objection from my point of view. If the hon. Member will leave it at that, I will take steps to draw up an Amendment in the right words.

Mr. Pickthorn: It might save time if the Chancellor could explain this matter. To me, it seems extremely anomalous. We were told by the Financial Secretary that


it was impossible for educational establishments in private hands to pay the full contribution. I do not understand why. If it is possible for the Treasury to allow municipalites to pay the full contribution—I do not say that I want it to be allowed—I should like the apparent anomaly explained.

Mr. Silkin: There is no anomaly. The Amendment merely makes it clear that local authorities are not charities.

Sir J. Lamb: They do not want to pay the one-third contribution as charities, and then to be debarred from receiving the full value for reinstatement.

Mr. Pickthorn: We have been assured from the front bench that the paying of the one-third contribution in no way affects the amount of compensation.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made:

In page 22, line 19, leave out "a," and insert:
land which constitutes or forms part of the.

In line 38, after "only," insert "proprietary."—[Sir K. Wood].

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 22, line 43, at the end, to insert:
(5) If and so long as land normally used as mentioned in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section is temporarily diverted from such use by reason of circumstances arising from war, the land shall be deemed for the purposes of this Section to be used as it is normally used.
This Amendment is to cover the case of premises normally used for charitable purposes but requisitioned for other purposes. The Amendment provides that they shall be regarded as remaining in charitable hands. This will keep them within the meaning of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 22, line 43, at the end, to insert:—
(6) For the purpose of giving effect to any directions given by the Treasury under Section eight of this Act, the Commission shall have power, where war damage occurs to a hereditament which satisfies the conditions specified in Sub-section (1) of this Section, and which is held for the advancement of education, science, or research, and where it is in the national interest on the ground of the purpose for which the property is occupied, or of the historic or artistic interest of the buildings damaged that the war damage should be made good, to make a payment of

the reasonable cost of the work in a style and with materials appropriate to the surroundings of the buildings and to the purpose. This Sub-section shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (5) of Section twenty-nine.
This is an empowering Sub-section, not binding the Treasury or the Commission in any way. It merely gives them power to make a rebuilding payment when otherwise there would have been a value payment, and to draw rather special attention to questions of style, material and so on. There are many arguments which might be put for this Amendment, but I do not wish to delay the Committee. The Amendment is of rather less importance now than it was when I put it down. In view of what the Attorney-General said on Clause 4 about the necessity of treating as a unit the whole of a building, or even of a group of buildings, which were interdependent, the chance of any educational institution receiving value payments instead of rebuilding payments is not very great. But that does not make it unreasonable for me to move the Amendment, and I hope that the Chancellor will go some way in meeting me.

Sir K. Wood: This, of course, enables the Commission to take the steps that my hon. Friend would desire, but, in fact, they have the power at this moment. I would ask my hon. Friend to rely upon the discrimination of the Commission as provided for in the Clause, and I do not think that it would be well to separate it in this way. I said in my statement a short time ago that the Commission will have the fullest regard, as it is my intention that they should, in all proper cases for the purposes of the charity concerned. They will certainly have regard to that matter, and I can also undertake, as I said before, that there shall be full consultation between the Commission and such persons or bodies as appear to them appropriate having regard to the purposes and nature of any such cases of this kind. Therefore, I think we can say that the power is already given to the Commission and that they will have regard to this particular matter which my hon. Friend has in mind and that there will be consultation. In these circumstances, I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, to leave out "property or hereditament," and to insert "land."
This is a Drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 23, line 4, leave out from "to," to "shall,' in line 6, and insert:
whether, or as to the extent to which, a proprietary interest is held for, or land is used for in connection with, the purposes of the advancement of education, science or research."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Sir J. Lamb: I do not propose to move the next Amendment on the Paper in my name—in page 23, line 6, at the end, to add:
(6) Nothing in this Section shall apply to any contributory property of which a local authority is the owner in fee simple.
In view of the statement which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is accepting this in principle, and that he will insert other words, perhaps at a later stage, I do not propose to move my Amendment, nor the following one—in page 23, line 6, at the end, to add:
(6) The managers of a public elementary school, not provided by the local education authority, may apply to the local education authority to pay the contributions which are due from the managers and if the local education authority approve such application such authority may pay the managers' contribution as part of the cost of maintenance of the school, and any sums receivable in respect of war damage shall be paid to the local education authority who shall apply them towards the reinstatement of the school, or a council school, and the provisions of Sections nine and ten of the Education Act, 1936, shall apply to schools damaged by enemy action.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir P. Hannon: Before the Clause is put to the Committee, may I say on behalf of those who are profoundly concerned with the provisions of this Clause in relation to churches, schools and various institutions and with the advancement of religion, how profoundly grateful we are to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the statement he has made this afternoon on the various Amendments submitted on the Paper? I cannot recall any instance in this House in which a Chancellor of the Exchequer has been so accessible or kindly and sympathetic with practical help and suggestions for the amendment of a complicated law as has

the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. In particular, he received the deputations on this delicate and very often baffling subject of our schools and churches with the greatest kindness and consideration.
I apologise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having put upon the Paper to-day a whole series of Amendments of which he should have had much longer notice. He said that he would take into consideration, in his own peculiar, genial and kindly way, the substance of the Amendments that I placed on the Paper this morning and would see how far he could go in meeting the principles involved in those Amendments. But, speaking generally on the Clause, I think, in this particular instance, in the application of this very delicate, difficult and embarrassing measure of war damage compensation, and contributions from all kinds of property owners in this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had a very generous and kindly point of view in regard to the Christian Churches. I am certain that the whole community desires the continuity of the influence of the Christian Churches in this country, and that they will readily acknowledge the attitude which the Chancellor has taken up.
I am sure that the whole nation and, indeed, that part of the world which is fighting for Christian civilisation will acknowledge the contribution which the Chancellor is making in this Bill. For my own part of the Christian Church, I think I can say, on behalf of my co-religionists, that nothing will more redound to the credit of the Chancellor than the attitude he has taken to secure the continuity of the Christian point of view.

Sir K. Wood: I am much indebted to my hon. Friend. I hope that I shall have his equally warm support for proposals that I may be introducing later in the year.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

CLAUSE 30.—(Properties occupied by public utility undertakers.)

Amendment made:

In page 23, line 8, after "occupied," insert "mainly or exclusively."

In line 11, leave out "shall be made."—(Sir K. Wood.)

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: On a point of Order. There are several other Amendments following the next Amendment which deal with different points. Are they to be taken individually?

The Chairman: I think some of these are different, and we shall have to take them separately. No doubt we shall have an answer by the Chancellor, or somebody on his behalf, to this first Amendment, and I hope it will be unnecessary to spend any appreciable amount of time on other Amendments of this kind.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I beg to move, in page 23, line 18, to leave out: "light railway, tramway, trolley-vehicle."
I take it that the various Amendments on this one subject will be discussed on the first Amendment. I have been asked to move this series of Amendments on behalf of the Conjoint Conference of Public Utility Associations, representatives of gas and electricity companies and water interests. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) represents the Metropolitan Water Board. The object of these Amendments is fairly clear. It is to take out of this Bill, with one exception, these public utility undertakings and reserve them for a later Measure which is promised in the Memorandum attached to this Bill, in which it says:
These will be the subject of further legislation which, after consultation with the undertakings concerned, will shortly be brought before Parliament and in which provision will be made for the payment of contribution on the basis of compensation.
The Conference of Public Utility Associations feel it would be best to have a future Measure on public utility associations in one complete whole instead of part of it being dealt with in this Bill and part of it being dealt with at a later stage. My Amendments deal with the public utility undertakings included in the Conjoint Conference. I understand that one of my hon. Friends will move an Amendment on behalf of other undertakings not included in the conference, but which I dare say take a similar line. There is one provision which obviously could not be deleted from the Clause, and that concerns the question of immediate compensation for damage. With that exception, it would seem better to leave out the other matters. Particularly is that the

case as regards public utility undertakings being assessed for contributory value. In Clause 14, contributory value is defined as being either the assessment under Schedule A—and public utility undertakings are not assessed under Schedule A—or the net annual valuation under the Rating and Valuation Acts. For that purpose, there is an assessment on the basis of receipts and profits, which obviously would not enable the public utility undertakings to come under the Bill. I think I have said enough regarding this Amendment. I know that my right hon. Friend has been in close touch with the conference in order to try to get an agreement, and I am sure that what is intended on both sides is to get the most workable Measure.

Captain Crookshank: My hon. Friend's purpose in moving this Amendment is to exclude certain public utility undertakings from the Clause, but if this were done, it would have a very odd effect, for some things would be quite haphazardly left out and some things would be left in. For instance, railways would be left in, but light railways, tramways and trolley vehicles would be taken out; gas, electricity and hydraulic power would be taken but, and canals, inland navigation and lighthouses would be left in. The result would be that the different categories would be treated differently. That is a very bad idea. Surely, all public utility undertakings ought to be dealt with in the same way. I do not see why in this connection gas should be treated differently from the equally valuable undertakings of canals and inland navigation. It is highly important that this Clause should be in the Bill, because otherwise no cost-of-works payments could be made ahead of the determination of Parliament about contributions and compensation generally. These public utility undertakings want a safeguard now, because they are liable to great damage.

Sir F. Fremantle: According to the Memorandum, that is already provided for in the Bill that is to come before Parliament.

Captain Crookshank: It is in this Bill, which is the important thing now. There is no logic in my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Perhaps this is the proper place to ask a question. I do not find slaughterhouses mentioned, and I do not know whether refuse destructors are included. Then there is the whole question of roads. I do not know what is proposed in these cases. Perhaps we might have an answer.

Sir K. Wood: There is a new Clause about highways on the Order Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I should like to put the case of the drainage authorities.

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has an Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with that subject. If he deals with it on this Amendment, he can only raise the differentiation between those concerns which have already been dealt with and drainage authorities. If he does so now, he must understand that I shall not call his Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I think it would be better to deal with it now. These associations are in favour of the preservation of Sub-section (4) paragraph (b), which allows for compensation. In a way they are local authorities, but they are not under the Ministry of Health but under the Ministry of Agriculture. There has always been a certain amount of difficulty about that. Perhaps I may give an instance where it would be found difficult under this Clause. There is the question of sea walls. Some of the catchment boards are responsible for the repair of some hundreds of miles of sea walls. They are not owners or occupiers. I mention that as one case to show that special consideration would be necessary. We have found in the past, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Minister of Health, that he was very kind to us when we were in difficulties. Owing to the special circumstances of the catchment boards and their responsibilities, we hope they will be taken into consultation in any Amendment to this Bill which may be proposed. I have mentioned one difficulty we can foresee, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into the point between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: I do not know whether this would be the proper time to ask a question on the Clause generally. There may be public utility undertakings controlling hotels in a town. There may be the case in one

town of a hotel being controlled by the railway which is exempt from any insurance premium, whereas a privately owned hotel would have to pay the insurance premium. In the latter case it seems to me that they would be carrying on business under very different conditions. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether public-utility-controlled hotels are to be exempted from the payment of insurance premium.

Captain Crookshank: That is a special point. I do not know what the position of railways would be here, but we will look into the point which the hon. Member has raised. As regards drainage authorities, the effect of the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment would be to take them out of public utility undertakers. Perhaps that is what he wants. They would not be assessed for Schedule A or rates, and they would not become contributory property in the definition, but would still be liable to receive compensation either for cost-of-works or value payment. I cannot believe that the Committee would want to leave authorities in that preferential position, particularly in view of the fact that in the nature of the case they are liable to suffer damage. I am sure he really does not mean to say on behalf of drainage authorities that they should pay no contribution and get all the benefits.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I am sure my right hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the only way to draw attention to the matter was to ask for the removal of these words.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 23, line 20 after "harbour," insert "quay."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 23, line 31, at the end, to insert:
(4) If any part of a sewerage or sewage-disposal undertaking referred to in Sub-section (3) of this Section is not a contributory property, such part shall nevertheless be deemed to be a contributory property for the purposes of this Section.
This Amendment is designed to remove an anomaly. As the Clause stands, sewerage undertakings which are contributory properties would come under the Clause, but underground sewers are not assessed under Schedule A and are not contributory undertakings and therefore do not


come within the Clause. Without the Amendment, therefore, you would have the extraordinary position that one part of a sewerage undertaking would come within the Clause and another would not. I am sure that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wants to avoid.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member would allow me to examine the matter and deal with it later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 24, line 9, at the end, insert "quay."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 32.—(Requisitioned land.)

Amendments made: In page 25, line 28, after "value," insert:
(or, where the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of this Act has effect, the rateable value).

In line 43, leave out the first "the," and insert "a."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 26, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (3) and to insert:
() Where, at any time during the period during which possession of the requisitioned land under emergency powers continues, a hereditament comprised wholly within the land sustains war damage such that a value payment becomes payable, then—

(a) in the application of Section four of this Act to the computation of the amount of the payment the depreciation in the value of the hereditament caused by the war damage shall be taken to be the amount by which the value of the hereditament in the state in which it was immediately after the occurrence of the damage is less than its value in the state in which it was immediately before the time of taking possession of the requisitioned land;
(b) no sum shall be payable under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939 (which provides for payment of compensation for damage, other than wear and tear or damage caused by war operations, ring to requisitioned land during the period of requisition), in respect of damage occurring to the hereditament."

It is necessary to make it clear that the provision of the Clause in respect to value payments should apply only where the damage occurs during the period when the land has remained requisitioned. Para-

graph (b) of the Amendment is needed to meet the case where damage has resulted from the occupation of the premises and a claim under Section 2 (1, b) of the Compensation (Defence) Act has thus arisen. If a house is totally destroyed by a bomb and the owner becomes entitled to a value payment, he clearly ought not to get a cost-of-works payment as well.

Sir A. Maitland: I am not sure whether the explanation of the Chancellor, which has to be read to be understood, meets a point which is exercising the minds of some of the municipal corporations. They are interested in this Clause because their land is likely to be requisitioned. There are many local authorities which are owners of aerodromes for civil flying which have been requisitioned by the Air Ministry. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is anxious to meet the legitimate anxieties which are exercising the minds of local authorities, and if he will assure me that he will look at this point from that aspect and will take steps to amend it if he finds that there is ground for these anxieties I shall be happy to accept the assurance.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me and let me have particulars of what he has in mind.

Sir A. Maitland: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, but I hope that in the many obligations he has undertaken he will not overlook this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Liddall: I beg to move, in page 26, line 9, at the end, to insert:
For the purposes of the provisions of this Section the direct contributor shall be at once notified by the user of a requisitioned hereditament to enable him to give effect to the provisions of Section three of this Act.
I hope that the Government will accept this very reasonable Amendment. Surely it is only right that the direct contributor should be notified by the user of the land that has been requisitioned when any damage has occurred, in order to enable him to take the appropriate action.

The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that notification should be made as soon as possible in every case, but for two reasons I would ask him not to press his Amendment. The first is that as the requisitioning authority


would be the Crown I think there would be great difficulty in getting any appropriate sanction behind this obligation.

Mr. Liddall: But the Crown has officials.

The Attorney-General: Certainly the Crown has officials, but in spite of that I feel there would be difficulty in getting an appropriate sanction if this were made an obligation. The other reason is that there may be a certain number of exceptional cases in which it would not be in the public interest to notify at once the nature of the damage which the enemy had done.

Mr. Liddall: Is it suggested that the direct contributor should not be made aware of what has happened?

The Attorney-General: Yes, there might be cases in which it was of importance, for a period at any rate, that no one should know of the damage that had been done. I and those who are dealing with this matter fully accept the idea behind this Amendment, and I understand that steps will be taken to see that notification is made, because it ought to be given in all save the very exceptional cases as I have indicated, and if anybody has any cause of complaint it will be looked into. I hope that for the reasons I have given my hon. Friend will accept what I have said in the matter and not press his Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that it is not only the Crown that is requisitioning property. Local authorities have the power to requisition, and they are not in the same position as the Crown. His answer covered the Crown but not local authorities, nor could he give an undertaking on their behalf, but something ought to be done about their position. Another point is that nobody ought to be penalised if in the circumstances indicated he has not put in a claim within the proper period. I hope that point will be looked into.

The Attorney-General: We dealt with that point in an earlier discussion. I do not know whether the hon. Member was here then. It was stated that, of course, the rules of the Commission must provide that no one is penalised who did not put in his claim within the stipulated period when there had been reasonable grounds for not informing him. I cannot

speak for local authorities, but I am sure they will realise the reasonableness of the point behind the Amendment, and see that the direct contributor is informed as soon as possible.

Mr. Liddall: I really cannot understand the hesitancy of the Attorney-General, but I am prepared to accept his assurances, because I have such great respect for him and am sure that he will see that proper notice is given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 26, line 10, to leave out Sub-section (4).
This is a drafting Amendment. It forms one of a series designed to make uniform various references to emergency powers in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bracewell Smith: In regard to payment for requisitioned property, some provision is proposed in Part II of the Bill that the Crown should pay the premiums on requisitioned property. I do not see why that cannot apply here. Property is requisitioned, and the premiums have to be paid by the owner. The Government have not been very generous in the matter of compensation for requisitioned property. If the owner has to pay the premiums for war damage insurance in respect of requisitioned property there will be a very heavy burden upon him. When the Government requisition properties, the properties often become military targets, and there again the owners must pay the premiums under the Bill, but they cannot recover the premiums from the Government. In the ordinary way, the Crown pays the premiums for insurances, but there is no provision in the Bill for the payment of premiums in that way. The owner cannot recover the premiums from the Crown.
In the nature of things, the leases of requisitioned properties are very short The owners cannot reoccupy the premises at very short notice, but all the time they must pay the premiums. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make provision in the Clause whereby a tenant


or owner of requisitioned premises may recover from the Crown the premiums which they have had to pay on the properties. I trust that the Chancellor will give the matter very close consideration.

Mr. A. C. Reed: I have had personal experience of requisitioned properties. I know hundreds of premises that have been requisitioned now for 15 months, and in respect of which even the payment of rent has not yet been settled. I know others that were requisitioned six months ago, and although some were not worth £20 nevertheless about £200 has already been spent upon inspections by various Departments. The matter goes from Department to Department, and there is no settlement. Owing to the very slow method of settlement, the owners of the properties will have to pay the insurance premiums, and will possibly not get them back from the Crown for years.

Captain Crookshank: Expediting payment for requisitioned buildings is not the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but is a question for the Departments concerned. To my knowledge, strict instructions have been sent out that these matters should be settled as soon as possible, and I believe that that is being done. In some areas there has been delay.

Mr. Reed: For 12 months.

Captain Crookshank: I can say that the Departments are trying to press on with payment. This matter has nothing to do with the Bill. In a case of requisitioning, the Crown, and in some cases the local authorities, are only in the position of very short tenants, and it does not fall upon them to pay the contributions. The position will stand as in the Bill.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Are there any means by which the owner of a property can recover these premiums from the Crown? In the case of properties with which I am acquainted, I believe that the Office of Works has paid insurance premiums. The premiums under the Bill will be an extra burden which may amount in some cases to 30/- per cent., which is very heavy.

Captain Crookshank: I think my hon. Friend must be talking about another part of the Bill.

Mr. Smith: Even in the case of the ordinary property this will be a very heavy extra burden.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is dealing with something which does not arise on this Clause.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 35.—(Disposal of salvage.)

Amendment made: In page 27, line 37, leave out from "of," to "any," in line 38, and insert "emergency powers."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 36.—(Contribution to be treated as a capital liability.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 28, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(2) Liabilities of contributors being a capital liability shall not be included as an expense in any ascertainment in coalmine accounts or in any other calculation by which the amounts or rates of wages are determined.
It would appear that unless an Amendment to this effect were included in the Bill the contributions of coal mines under this Bill would have to be borne partly by the coal miners, because in the ascertainment if that were allowed as an expense then of course the whole cost would be shared by the coal miners. A case may be argued that certain other people should contribute, but I think it is not the intention of the Chancellor that any set of workers should be singled out for a special liability in this connection which is not specifically mentioned in the Bill, and that there can be no intention of the miners being asked to bear a share of the contribution for the protection of the coal mines against war damage any more than any other worker in industry. I need not labour the case. Some of my hon. Friends have a considerable amount of data on the subject, but I think it is superfluous to do more than put the point, and I shall be glad to have the Chancellor's assurance on it.

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Member is not quite aware of the latest development with regard to this Amendment.


I understand that it has been the subject of discussion by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines with the Miners' Association and the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. This, apparently, is what has emerged. Both the Association and the Federation consider that, as wage settlements are subjects of negotiation, it would be a mistake to have one element in the negotiation a statutory obligation. One can see the importance of that point. In consequence, the Miners' Association are ready to give an assurance that it is not their intention that payments to be made under the Act should be regarded as expenses to be taken into account for purposes of the ascertainment of wages, and, on the other hand, the Miners' Federation of Great Britain are agreeable to accepting that assurance. That being so, and in view of the undesirability of putting in a statutory requirement, I think that meets the case which the hon. Gentleman's friends have in mind.

Mr. Tinker: The assurance of the right lion. and gallant Gentleman will meet the point of view which we had in mind. I understand that capital expenditure is not allowed to come in; I was afraid that it might be.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of the assurance given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the report of these negotiations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made:

In page 28, line 18, after "as," insert "or as a mortgagee of."— [Sir K. Wood.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 28, line 19, at the end, to add:
() Any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Crown Lands in discharging any liability as a direct or indirect contributor may, with the approval of the Treasury, be charged as a principal sum to the account of the land revenues of the Crown; but any sum so charged in pursuance of this Sub-section shall, if the Treasury so direct, be repaid out of the income of the said revenues within such time and by such number of instalments of such amounts respectively as may be specified in the directions.
This Amendment and the following Amendments are all to enable the Commissioners of Crown Lands to pay the contributions which they will have to make out of capital. It is, of course, the general

intention of the Bill that these contributions are to be regarded as payments out of capital, but in the case of the Commissioners of Crown Lands it is necessary to give statutory authority to that effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 28, line 19, at the end, add:
() The purposes authorised by Section twenty-five of the Act of the fifty-seventh year of King George the Third, chapter ninety-seven, for the application of moneys arising by any such sale of annuities standing in the name or to the account of the Duchy of Lancaster as is therein mentioned, shall include the discharge of any liability as a direct or indirect contributor.

In line 19, at the end, add:
() The purposes authorised by Section eight of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act, 1863, as amended by Section one of the Act of the thirty-first and thirty-second years of Queen Victoria, chapter thirty-five, for the advancement of parts of such gross sums as are therein mentioned shall include the discharge of any liability as a direct or indirect contributor."—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir G. Courthope: I beg to move, in page 28, line 19, at the end, to add:
() Where a proprietary interest in any contributory property belongs to an ecclesiastical corporation—

(a) the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty may apply any money or securities held by them respectively for the corporation in discharging any liability as a direct or indirect contributo arising in respect of an instalment of contribution for that property;
(b) if the interest belongs to a benefice as defined by Section forty-seven of the Tithe Act, 1936, Queen Anne's Bounty may make grants out of their corporate funds for or towards the discharge of any such liability as aforesaid;
(c) the purposes for which a loan under the Clergy Residences Repair Act, 1776, or the Acts or Measures amending that Act may be made by Queen Anne's Bounty shall include the discharge of any such liability as aforesaid."

This Amendment calls for a very short explanation. The Ecclesiastical Com-Missioners and Queen Anne's Bounty hold a very large number of capital sums in trust for what are generally known as ecclesiastical corporations The trusts are very strict and there is a doubt as to whether it would be legal, without these words or some other statutory sanction, for capital contributions to be paid out of these funds. This Amendment, if agreed to, will enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of


Queen Anne's Bounty to make payment out of these capital sums in respect of contributions under this Bill.

Sir K. Wood: The necessary Amendments will be made to enable this end to be achieved.

Earl Winterton: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend if it is intended that these semi-official bodies should pay the whole of their contributions out of capital? Many of them are in the position of receiving a considerable revenue while the capital is required urgently for a great number of purposes.

Sir G. Courthope: There will be no improper use of capital for matters for which revenue is required. There would be great hardship in some cases in which it might be impossible legally to pay contributions at all unless they were taken out of these funds.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 37.—(Payments to be made out of moneys provided by Parliament and contributions to be paid into Exchequer.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major Milner: It is, apparently, proposed that all payments should be made out of moneys provided by Parliament and that all contributions received should be paid into the Exchequer. According to the next Clause separate accounts are to be provided each year, and laid before Parliament. Is that the usual course with regard to separate funds of this kind? I do not want it to be suggested at some future time that Post Office Savings Bank deposits may be used for the general purposes of the Exchequer. Are the Road Fund receipts paid into a separate fund or into the general fund of the Exchequer?

Sir K. Wood: We considered how this should be done, and whether, in fact, a separate fund was necessary. We wanted to avoid a separate fund if possible, and we came to the conclusion that we might do it by means of these two Clauses. Clause 36 directs that all payments in respect of war damage and payment of

interest on value payments should be paid out of voted money, and that all sums received by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should be paid to the Exchequer. That is the usual form of Clause, and it creates the necessary machinery for the payment of the money in the way I have indicated. As a result, the House will be able to discuss the activities of the Commission on the usual Supply Days, which is another advantage. Clause 38 lays down exactly what the Treasury will have to lay before Parliament each year. There will be a statement, showing the payments made by the Commission, the amount collected by the Inland Revenue in contribution, and the proceeds from disposal of salvaged material. This statement will give the annual income and expenditure under the scheme. In course of time, it will show how far contributions have met the cost of compensation; and any revisions in regard to contributions made by the Treasury under Clause 16 will have to be justified. It is to be noted that the statement is one of actual receipts and payments, not of liabilities and assets. During the war, at any rate, the amount of payments, we hope, will be small compared with the payments accruing, although, of course, one cannot say how much. The form of statement will be separate, so as to show contributions received, compensation paid, and also details in connection with charities and other cases where special circumstances exist. Subject to any exigencies of the war, Parliament will be able to see the whole of the expenditure, and will have opportunities for discussion.

Earl Winterton: Will these particulars come before the Public Accounts Committee in the ordinary way?

Sir K. Wood: The statement is a collection of facts.

Sir A. Maitland: Much as one appreciates the need for discussion, I think it equally important that the House should understand that the moneys will not be available for the general purposes of the Exchequer. What is not desired under this Bill is that the Treasury should make a profit out of the premiums. My right hon. Friend is a very clever parliamentarian and it is extremely important that we should have an opportunity of discussing these matters. It is equally, if


not more, important that we should not allow the Treasury to lose its rights in the general fund of the Exchequer, and then to find that, while people can go on making contributions, when it comes to a final reckoning, the premiums collected have in fact been absorbed. May I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that, though he thinks it is an advantage not to have separate funds, in the mixing up of the Fund, he will see that there is no diminution in the moneys available, and that when the fund comes to an end the Treasury will not have authority to take possession of the balance?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot, of course,, assume that responsibility.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 40.—(Regulations to be laid before Parliament.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major Milner: I notice that these regulations have to be made by the Treasury, and why is this restricted to this part of the Act? Are there to be other regulations under the Act which have not been laid before Parliament?

Sir K. Wood: I will look into that matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 41.—(Interpretation of Part I.)

Sir H. Webbe: I beg to move, in page 30, line 7, at the end, to insert:
(b) in relation to land comprised in any such hereditament as aforesaid the valuation of which in a valuation list under the Rating and Valuation Acts, 1925 to 1940, or the Rating and Valuation (Metropolis) Acts, 1869 to 1940, is ascertained by reference to the accounts, receipts or profits of the undertaking carried on therein, the expression 'land' includes all mains, pipes, lines, apparatus, plant and machinery comprised in that hereditament.
I move this Amendment on behalf of my lion. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) in order to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to look into the definition of "land" in this Clause from the point of view of public utility companies. If that definition is to be

satisfactory, some such extension as is suggested here is required. There appears to be some doubt among public utility companies whether they would not, under the present definition, find themselves in difficulty in knowing under which part of the Bill they come. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look into the point, I shall not press the Amendment.

Sir K. Wood: I will certainly do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir G. Courthope: I beg to move, in page 30, line 17, to leave out paragraph (c).
I move the Amendment on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spells). Paragraph (c) excludes from the meaning of "land" all crops and trees, although some trees are included whose value for shelter or amenity purposes is greater than their value for selling. It is the peculiar fact that woodlands are excluded from this part of the Bill. If the Bill passes as it is drawn, land will have an entirely different interpretation under Part 1 from the interpretation which it will have under Part 2. I hope my right hon. Friend will not think I have wasted the time of the Committee in asking for an explanation.

Sir K. Wood: The effect of this Amendment is that it is intended to bring in under Part 1 of the Bill all crops and trees. That is our reading of it. Such an arrangement will result in the farmer and agriculturist getting almost unwarranted good value for his contribution. The contribution is fixed at 6d. where the land consists of open land and is not likely to suffer damage through bombing. It is difficult to see how one can justify claims arising in respect of a field of ripe corn or a plantation of timber where the damage may, in fact, run into a very considerable sum. This type of property, crops and trees grown for timber, will be covered by the business scheme under Part 2 of the Bill and I suggest that is a more equitable basis than the one proposed, which would hardly be fair to other contributors.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I would like to draw the Chancellor's attention to an anomaly that occurs as regards my own property. I have a hedgerow of trees and a young plantation which has been bombed. I am not saying that for these trees we should


pay only 6d., but it seems rather ridiculous to value the whole of one shell-hole or one tree in one way and something in another way. Either trees are crops and should be valued as such or they are not.

Earl Winterton: This point is one of enormous importance not only to private but to public owners of timber. As I understand it my right hon. Friend says that it will be possible to raise the whole question of insurance of valuable timber when we come to the other part of the Bill on another day.

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

Sir G. Courthope: I thank my right hon. Friend for his explanation and I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 30, line 21, at the end to insert:
'local authority' means the council of a county, county borough or county district or the common council of the City of London or the council of a metropolitan borough.
I am sure we ought to define a local authority but I am not sure whether this is the time to do it. I see that the Chancellor has an Amendment down under which there is a definition of a local authority, and so long as it is included somewhere I have no objection.

Sir K. Wood: I will certainly look into that.

Sir J. Lamb: Will it apply to a local authority as well?

Sir K. Wood: I am sure that all important bodies will be included.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 31, line 9, at the end, to insert:
'town and country planning' includes planning, the construction or improvement of roads, the development of frontages, building restrictions, control of the use of land and the preservation of amenities.
This Amendment deals with the interpretation of "town and country planning." What the County Councils' Association wish is that the Commission shall have the right to consider, under town and country planning, such subjects as

the improvement of roads, the development of frontages, building restrictions, and so on, all of which are obligations placed on the local authorities by the House.

Captain Crookshank: Apparently the County Councils' Association are mistaken in this matter. This Amendment is not necessary. In its attempt to define "town and country planning" it gives a much less wide definition than the accepted one, which is that given in Section 1 of the Act of 1932. If this Amendment were included in the Bill, it would exclude the wider subjects. All the words of the Amendment and much more are already included in the definition in the Act of 1932.

Sir J. Lamb: Whether we were mistaken or not, we have achieved the object of getting a definition from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I move this Motion in order that, before proceeding to a discussion of the Amendments to Clause 42, I may ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have made very good progress with the Bill and have reached the end of the first Part. Those for whom I speak have no objection to going on with the discussion of Part II of the Bill now, but I think it would be the general wish of the Committee that we should not to-day start a discussion on Clause 47, on which the question of the voluntary principle for the insurance of chattels arises, and which I think the Committee would wish to discuss at greater length. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor whether, if the Committee should reach the end of Clause 46 before the time of rising, he will agree at that stage to move to report Progress, so that Clause 47 may be left to a later occasion?

Sir K. Wood: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the President of the Boa rd of Trade, who, I am glad to say, is particularly concerned with Part II of the Bill, concerning the very reasonable suggestion


made by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). The matter of principle in Clause 47 is a very important one, and I should be quite willing at that stage to move that the Chairman do report Progress, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. May I take the opportunity of thanking the Committee for the progress we have made?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 42.—(Insurance schemes.)

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) has two Amendments down to this Clause. I can give him the choice which he moves, but, of course, he cannot move them both.

Sir F. Fremantle: I beg to move, in page 31, line 45, after "business," to insert:
which expression in this part of the Act shall include any trade, profession, employment or vocation.
It is thought by the medical profession, for whom I speak, that it would be best to use the interpretation of the word "business" which is used in the Income Tax Act. In that sense, therefore, I have put down the expression:
shall include any trade, profession, employment or vocation.
It is possible that some other Amendment may be preferred, but I am chiefly concerned to include in "profession" medical men. I understand that it has been said in the Memorandum to this Bill that the word "business" does include the professions; but there is nothing in the Bill to say so, and the medical men do not like to trust simply to a statement of that sort. I have been in correspondence on the subject, and all that I have had has been an explanation saying that it is included. However, I think it ought to be definitely stated, and I hope, if my Amendment is not allowed, that the matter will he looked into.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): I am advised that the word "business" covers the professions, and that it would be dangerous from the legal point of view to insert here the words proposed. There is something to be said, I think, for making clear to the ordinary

reader the extent to which the word "business" applies. I do not know whether that can be done, but I will look into it.

Sir F. Fremantle: With that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has an Amendment on the Order Paper which, so far as I can see, has very little importance.

Sir J. Lamb: On a point of Order. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. On the Second Reading I was informed that if the amount which was received as insurance was all absorbed by the first casualty, then it would be necessary for a person to insure for a second period. The Commission, I understand, has the right of fixing a lower rate for the second period; I want to know whether it would be for the remaining six months, because the first insurance covers two years.

The Chairman: I am inclined to think that the hon. Member is under a misunderstanding, as shown by his talking about "insurance."

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 32, line 13, after "nature," to insert "or period."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): I cannot quite see what this has to do with the period for which the policy is issued. It is intended to make the normal period of policies under the business scheme three months, and any increase in the value of plant, etc., during the period of the policy can be covered by a supplementary policy, so I think that the hon. Gentleman's object is covered by the Clause as it stands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 32, line 20, at the end, to insert:
but not in any case to exceed five shillings per centum.
There is no premium mentioned in the Bill at all, but in the Memorandum it is stated that the premium will be 30s. per cent. That is a prohibitive premium for business concerns, and certainly for household furniture. The business man will not be able to help himself. If this


goes through, he will have to pay, but I wonder how many contributors the Board of Trade expect to get under the private scheme at a premium of £1 10s per cent. I suppose they will get those who have already been bombed, but I wonder how many more at that sort of premium, except the worst possible risks. I have no doubt that the premium of 30s. was fixed with that in mind, realising that only the worst risks would come in. I do not suppose for a moment that my Amendment will be accepted. No one would be more pleased than I to find that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to bind himself to a maximum premium of 5s. per cent. The principle of voluntary insurance of private chattels forces a high premium upon those who are insured, but, whether the principle of compulsory insurance is accepted or not, everyone, including the right hon. Gentleman, will admit that he cannot possibly maintain a premium of 30s., and there will have to be a substantial reduction if you are going to meet the difficulties of the ordinary man and woman in vulnerable areas whose homes are liable to be destroyed, who are a little better off than those entitled to get compensation automatically but who cannot afford to pay a premium of this sort. I hope that my Amendment will have the effect of securing some statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to his intentions, not necessarily under a compulsory insurance scheme, because that is a matter which ought to be discussed in a fuller Committee on another day, but as to the amount of premium he proposes to charge. I hope that he will be able to tell us that it will not be 30s. per cent. whether the scheme is compulsory or voluntary.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not proposed to call the similar Amendment lower down in the names of several hon. Members. It can be discussed at the same time as this Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: I would like to support the remarks of my hon. Friend. The Amendment is not put down in any expectation that 5s. will be a practical proposition. It is put down to challenge the proposition of 30s. per cent. In the case of small houses many people would be surprised to know that their furniture had mounted in value to £100. Even in

the poorest houses it could not be replaced for much less, yet the owner in such a case will be called upon to pay 30s. if he wishes to insure under this scheme. If the value of the furniture is £200, which is not extravagant, it means £3, and that is a big contribution to ask from a person in a poor position. Going up the scale, it becomes a burden, which I am sure is not the intention of the Government.
The practical point is that if it is decided that the scheme shall be compulsory, the premium of 30s will not be necessary, for a larger number of contributions will be brought in and there will be no justification for having it on the higher basis than the other part of the scheme. There is no reason why property should get insurance for 2s. and a high premium is charged for the chattels. The amount of the premium will probably be a guess, but there is no reason why the guess should be in favour of the property owners as against the people who have furniture to insure. If the Bill remains as it is and it is not to be compulsory, the difficulty will be to make the premium such as to induce the smaller contributors to come in. If the amount is made prohibitive, the bad lives will insure themselves, and many of the good lives, such as people in the country areas who do not expect to be bombed and people in residential parts of the country which are supposed to be safety areas, will take the chance and stay out of insurance. From the point of view of inducing the maximum number of people to come in, the contribution will have to be reduced, and I hope the Government will reduce the 30s. to an amount more appropriate to the circumstances.

Mr. Butcher: I hope the Government will seriously consider whether a lower figure than 30s. is not possible, because as the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) has said, it will place a heavy burden on a householder in respect of furniture, and also place a heavy burden on businesses in respect of their plant and machinery. I have had representations made to me by the industry with which I am connected that it lays a heavy burden upon them and they have asked me to ventilate the point here. Nobody denies that the premiums must be adequate to cover the


risk, but we should be grateful if the Government would indicate to us in what way their estimate of the risk has been arrived at. If it was a very clever guess we think that perhaps they have taken too severe a picture of the future. I hope there may be some elucidation of that point.

Mr. Lyttelton: The question of the 30s. premium for chattels raises the whole question whether the scheme is to be compulsory or not, and I should not like to go too deeply into that aspect of the matter, because if it is a voluntary scheme, most of the objections which the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) put forward will not then arise; and incidentally I should point out that the poorer householders will come under the free compensation scheme. To attempt to answer that particular point about chattels would raise the whole question of whether the scheme is to be compulsory, and I can only turn my attention to the 30s. premium as it applies to businesses. That figure is based upon the very serious nature of the risk, and is not a guess, but is based upon experiences in the last three months as projected into the future. On that experience we think it may lead to a very heavy burden on the Exchequer. I do not think it would be possible to consider any lower premium. Though it may be regarded as a burden on businesses, I think it is one which will have to be borne

Mr. Benson: The President of the Board of Trade has entirely failed to answer the very valid point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) that for a voluntary scheme 30s. is an unsound figure. A lower premium would be a better proposition financially from the Government point of view. When it was suggested that a compulsory scheme would bring in more chattels, the President of the Board of Trade shook his head. Does he really think that with the present premium he will obtain wide insurance in comparatively safe areas? People in London, Birmingham and Coventry will insure, but people in Scotland, in the Lake District and elsewhere will not insure. I am not at all certain that 5s. per cent. would not be a sounder proposition than 30s. If we retain the 30s., the Government will make a heavy loss. They might make a heavy loss if it were reduced to 5s., but by reducing the figure they would bring in good risks,

whereas the 30s. premium secures only the worst risks, and that point the President of the Board of Trade entirely failed to deal with.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 32, line 45, at the end, to add:
(7) The exercise and performance of the powers and duties of a local authority shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be treated as the business of that authority.
The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that local authorities come within the terms of the Measure. They are anxious that they shall be regarded as businesses so as to come within the scheme of compulsory insurance. For the purpose of their undertakings and the performance of their duties many of them will be insurable under Part I of the Bill. Many of their powers are in the nature of business undertakings. I hope that in so far as they are not already covered in Part I of the Bill, the activities of local authorities can be covered by this Part.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am advised that, from the legal point of view, the Amendment is unnecessary, and that the point of the Amendment is covered by the Clause as drafted, but the question whether it would be advisable to insert a declaratory Clause to make the position clear is being considered.

Mr. Silkin: I understand that the Attorney-General is to look into the matter and will consider whether the words I propose are necessary. That being so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mathers: I think this is the proper time for me to raise a matter on behalf of those who lost their property and personal belongings upon their evacuation from the Channel Islands, when those Islands were abandoned. I am a member of the Railway Clerks' Association, and I have information that about 50 of the members of that organisation who were evacuated from the Channel Islands are seriously concerned about the absence of any provision for registering claims for compensation in respect of the properties and possessions which they were forced to leave behind. I wish to


know whether the schemes we are considering will allow of provision being made for the losses that they have encountered?
The position in which they were put should excite the sympathy of this Committee. The Channel Islands were abandoned because of the exigencies of war, and the loss which the inhabitants have suffered is as definitely loss by enemy action as is any loss that can come by bombing or in other ways. I hope that the passage of the Bill will provide an opportunity for doing even-handed justive to people who have been so badly affected. I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give us now, or at a later stage, some indication of the position that they occupy in respect of compensation.

Sir A. Maitland: I understood the Minister to answer the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) by suggesting that local authorities would be understood to come within the provisions of this Clause, and I would like to mention one aspect of that matter. If they are to be regarded as a business community, is it to be for all purposes of their undertakings? For example, they have their tramways, art galleries and town halls. I would be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would assure us that he will consider whether it is not reasonable that the local authorities should have some discretion in the matter, in view of the special responsibilities of the local authorities. I think they should have a right of discretion as to what part of their undertakings will be a contributor to this scheme.

Earl Winterton: I would like to say a word in support of my hon. Friend. I do not know whether this part of the Bill is applicable to the Channel Islands, but I am informed by my hon. Friend behind me who has legal knowledge that the Channel Islands have their own Legislature. I hope that the President will consider the point put by my hon. Friend. I have had brought to me cases of the most poignant anxiety concerning the loss of the whole of the goods of these people. If my right hon. Friend is not able to deal with that point now, perhaps he will be able to give it favourable consideration between now and the Report stage, because an important question of principle is involved.

Mr. Silkin: May I put forward a case in connection with local authorities? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's reply applies only to businesses run by local authorities. I want to put this particular position to him. Let us take a large authority like the London County Council. They have large stores of goods of all sorts in their various hospitals, institutions, schools and so on. In the case of the London County Council, the total value of their stock at any one moment might be as large as £15,000,000. Strictly speaking, in respect of many of their services it is doubtful whether they are carrying on a business. They are not carrying on a business in connection with their public assistance institutions or hospitals. Therefore it may well be that on a strict reading of this Clause they would be excluded, although my right hon. Friend has assured me on my Amendment that they are covered. I want it to be abundantly clear that they are covered somewhere, somehow, in respect of these enormous stocks which they are compelled to carry for the purpose of their undertaking. They are not in a position to insure in respect of furniture, because although they have a good deal of furniture there is at present a maximum of £1,500. But apart altogether from that, a vast proportion of their stocks are not in the form of furniture at all and could not be covered anyway under the private chattels scheme. I should accordingly he glad if it could be made clear that a local authority such as the London County Council in possession of stocks of furniture of all sorts for the purposes of its undertakings will come within this part of the Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn: I should like to refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) when he spoke about the distinction between the stocks held by a local authority for use in connection with those of its functions which form a kind of business and what it holds for its other functions, such as art galleries and so on. Possibly this is the appropriate moment—and I apologise if it is not—for me to inquire about the insurance of chattels belonging to charities under Clause 29, because presumably what are regarded as charities under one Part of the Bill may be regarded as businesses under another Part. It is quite clear that if they are


not able to be assured in some way of some sort of reimbursement, they will run the risk of being put entirely out of business. It is equally clear, if they must contemplate paying the full premium on everything they have, that that also will put them out of business. I should like to ask whether, as in the not incomparable case of municipalities, it will not be possible to give us this right, so that we may insure those of our goods which are replaceable and without which our functions could not be recommenced, and not have to pay premiums on those parts of our chattels which in any case are not replaceable and which we should not for a moment think ought to be replaced?

Sir J. Lamb: I would like to point out that the authority for which I am acting, the County Councils' Association, claim that they shall be full beneficiaries and will take full responsibility. I entirely agree with the argument put forward by my hon. Friend opposite.

Mr. Lyttelton: As I have said, I am advised that it is unnecessary to include any words to this effect, though it is being considered whether that should be done on the Report stage. There are really two points. In the ordinary sense of the word, local authorities carrying on business would be regarded as business concerns. It is a very different question in regard to their picture galleries, and what would apply to them in this case should apply to universities as well. Although they might be regarded as carrying on business, it might be intolerable if they had to pay a premium of the full amount on a valuable collection of pictures. Under Clause 45 the Board has power to exempt from compulsory insurance, and it is that Clause which we propose to invoke when deciding to what extent these particular things fall under the scheme. I can promise that in regard to works of art we shall deal with them in consultation with the local authorities, universities and so on which are concerned.
With regard to the Channel Islands, the Bill does not apply, and I think that hon. Members will agree that, as in this Bill payment of a premium is involved, the whole matter of compensation—which, I am sure, will have everybody's sympathy—should really come under an entirely different Measure. I can see great difficulties in attempting to impose the pay-

ment of a premium on people who have carried on business in the Channel Islands. I do not think their case really falls within the framework of this Bill.

Mr. Douglas: The answer given by the President of the Board of Trade on the position of local authorities is highly unsatisfactory. The Amendment which my hon. Friend moved just now was in order to make it clear that all the activities of a local authority would, for the whole of this Bill, be treated as a business. It was understood when my hon. Friend withdrew his Amendment that that was the interpretation placed upon the Measure, and that, therefore, his Amendment was unnecessary. Now, the President of the Board of Trade has drawn a distinction between different activities of a local authority. I understand that he suggests that such things as the supply of electricity are businesses; but about that we have never had any real doubt, because they are assessed as businesses, and everybody regards them as such. But there are a hundred other things which local authorities do which are not regarded as businesses. Does the President consider, for instance, that the relief of the poor is covered by the provision in this Bill in respect of businesses? Are an art gallery, a museum, a library, or a cemetery businesses? I beg the President of the Board of Trade to take this matter seriously. It affects hundreds of local authorities, and involves chattels running into millions of pounds in value, all of which are at stake. The local authorities are not being treated fairly.

Sir Herbert Williams: I am rather glad that the Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was not carried. Under Clause 29, public utilities, broadly speaking, are left out of this Bill. They are to have their own Bill introduced later, as they have no Schedule A valuation. They are assessed for Income Tax and rates on the basis of their profits. If we were to bring under this Bill the powers and duties of local authorities—

Mr. Douglas: We are dealing with hereditaments, not chattels.

Sir H. Williams: I agree; but you must be careful what you mean by chattels. The London County Council, broadly speaking, is not a public utility, except


that it owns a lot of sewers, which are maintained by means of rates, and are not hired out. Local authorities which are public utilities are in a different position. Any local authority which runs an electricity undertaking owns a great deal of plant. Do you want to bring such authorities under these schemes? Is it desirable that they should be? They are to be dealt with in a separate Bill. Are you going to split up the Fulham Borough electricity undertaking; and put some of it, possibly, under Part I of this Bill, some more of it under Part II of this Bill, and the rest of it under the new Bill which is to be brought in? You will, in that way, have confusion worse confounded. My own view is that public utility undertakings ought to be outside this Bill, except to a limited extent, pending the new Measure. There is power under Clause 30 to make certain grants on account. Otherwise, we shall get into a most difficult situation. The public utility under the local authority may be charged a small amount under Schedule A, and a lot more, because it is rated, not on an annual valuation based on the occupation of property, but on a valuation based upon its profits. Finally, you are going to have the showroom and contents under a separate scheme. I ask hon. Gentlemen who sit on the London County Council, which, comparatively speaking, runs no public utilities, where they would get if they pursued their point sufficiently far. The art galleries have their importance, but in relation to the great issue, they are small. Municipalities in this country probably own £1,000,000,000 worth of utilities, and the art galleries, and the rest are very small in regard to the major issues, and therefore I hope that my hon. Friends will be careful.

Mr. Mathers: I would like to say to the President of the Board of Trade how greatly disappointed I was with the reply in connection with the point that I put as to Channel Island evacuees. He has said that their position does not come within the four corners of the Bill. One wonders why people in that position have not the opportunity to come in, and why some measure of justice is not done to them. The action that was taken very suddenly was on the initiative of this country, and by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a Member,

and these people, because of that action, are left without any redress at all. That action took away from them the opportunity that they might have had if they had followed the example of this House through their own Legislature to make such provision. They are left high and dry in a very serious position indeed. They are British subjects who have been abandoned, one might almost say, by the British Government. That is a serious statement to make, and it calls for action to be taken on their behalf. I would have liked the right hon. Gentleman to have shown sufficient sympathy with their plight and to have been able to say that he and his Government will take into consideration the position in which these people find themselves, with the idea of finding some means of meeting their plight in the way we are endeavouring to meet it for the citizens of the United Kingdom.

Earl Winterton: While I do not go perhaps quite as far in suggesting that the President of the Board of Trade might be definite about this Clause, I think that there is a moral debt placed upon the Committee. I think we would have liked to see something done for these unfortunate people, who are worse off than any other subjects of the Crown within the United Kingdom. As it is technically in order to raise the matter on this Clause, I would make the strongest possible appeal to my right hon. Friend to use all the influence he possesses with his colleagues in the Government to see whether, at an early date, some announcement cannot be made as to how these people are to be dealt with. If not, we shall have to press the matter very strongly at Question Time.

Sir P. Hannon: I would like to support my Noble Friend. The position of these Channel Islanders is deplorable. While the President of the Board of Trade cannot go into the position of the Channel Islanders at the moment, I would support the suggestion made by my hon. Friends opposite that some statement should be made by His Majesty's Government in the very near future as to the policy they will adopt in relation to these people, and what can be done to relieve them in the situation in which they find themselves. They are our subjects and have been in an outpost of the Empire for years, and it is a sad reflection that during the whole


of this time since they were seized by the enemy, no real effort should have been made by His Majesty's Government to help them.

Earl Winterton: They are all on the rates.

Sir P. Hannon: I have lived in the Isle of Sark, which is one of the most delightful of places for a temporary abode, and it is sad to think that these people, whose loyalty and devotion are so strong and everlasting, should now be left to their fate. I quite understand that the Financial Secretary cannot bring them within the scope of this Bill, but surely the Government ought to make some statement to the country about these people, who are in the grip of the most detested enemy ever known to mankind.

Mr. Lyttelton: I would not like anything that I have said to be construed as meaning that I lack sympathy for the Channel Islanders. But the point is that we are dealing with an insurance Bill, and it seems inappropriate to bring the Channel Islands within the framework of this Measure. Indeed, they cannot be brought in, but I will make known to my colleagues the views which have been expressed.
As regards the point raised about picture galleries, I think the hon. Gentleman opposite did me an injustice when he said that I was not perfectly clear in my mind in saying that the Clause as now drafted brings all activities of local

authorities in as businesses. Under Clause 45 the Board of Trade have the right to examine, in consultation with these local authorities, any part of their activities in regard to which there are objections to compulsion, and if the burden of compulsory insurance of works of art is too great, machinery exists by which that particular class of activity can be excluded from the operation of the Bill.

Mr. Douglas: I am very much obliged for the statement made by the Minister. With all respect the position is clearer now than it was when he made his previous statement.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have made remarkable progress to-day and have now reached a very important Clause which we cannot possibly hope to finish in the few minutes left at our disposal. I think, therefore, that it would be far better to leave it until the next Sitting Day.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Grimston.]